Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Clearwater Fish Hatchery |
| Proposal ID | 200103 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Tom Rogers |
| Mailing address | Fisheries, P.O. Box 25 Boise ID 83707 |
| Phone / email | 2083343791 / trogers@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore, Chief of Fisheries, IDFG |
| Review cycle | LSRCP |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | As part of the LSRCP, Clearwater Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear juvenile salmon and steelhead to meet the mitigation goals of 12,000 adult chinook salmon and 14,000 adult summer steelhead upstream of Lower Granite Dam. |
| Target species | Oncoryhnchus twshawytscha, spring chinook salmon; Oncorynchus mykiss, summer steelhead (steelhead) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.5027 |
-116.3248 |
T37N, R 1E, Sec 34 NW corner of the SW quadrant |
| 46.5038 |
-116.3209 |
Clearwater Fish Hatchery |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hatchery RPA Action 169 |
| Hatchery RPA Action 170 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
|
See Clearwater Appendix 1 |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
LSRCP Hatchery Evaluation Studies |
Provides hatchery chinook and steelhead for hatchery evaluation and experimentation. |
|
LSRCP Harvest Monitoring Program |
Provides hatchery chinook and steelhead for mitigation fisheries. |
| 199005500 |
Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers |
Rears hatchery steelhead for supplementation experimentation and assists with adult return evaluation. |
| 198909800 |
Idaho Supplementation Studies |
Rears spring chinook for supplementation experimentation and assists with adult return evaluation. |
|
U.S. v Oregon Spring Management Agreement, 2001 |
Contributes spring chinook production for fisheries and supplementation experimentation. |
|
U.S. v Oregon Fall Management Agreement, 2001 |
Contributes steelhead production for fisheries and natural production enhancement efforts. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
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 |
|---|
| 1. Trap, spawn and rear up to 1.5 million spring chinook salmon for release into the Clearwater River Basin. |
a.Trap and spawn spring chinook salmon adults at three satellite facilities. |
ongoing |
$1,002,653 |
|
|
b.Incubate and rear spring chinook salmon at central facility. |
ongoing |
$0 |
|
|
c. Transport and release spring chinook salmon into the Clearwater River Drainage, including presmolt and smolt acclimation at three satellite facilities. |
ongoing |
$0 |
|
| 2. Rear up to 1,750,000 B-run steelhead smolts for release into the Clearwater River Basin. |
a. Incubate and rear summer steelhead presmolts and smolts for release. |
ongoing |
$493,844 |
|
|
b.Transport and release summer steelhead into the Clearwater River Drainage. |
ongoing |
$0 |
|
| 3. Mark juvenile chinook and steelhead with finclip, CWT, PIT or other methods for research, monitoring, and selective fishery needs. |
a.Provide manpower and equipment to clip and tag up to 1.5 million chinook and up to 1.75 million steelhead annually. |
ongoing |
$81,573 |
|
| 4.Provide fish health exams and disease treatments for juvenile and adult chinook salmon and steelhead for disease prevention. |
a.Provide monthly fish health exams for juveniles including prerelease exam. Conduct disease sampling of broodstock during spawning season to facilitate adult and egg culling for BKD and viruses. |
ongoing |
$98,320 |
|
| 5.Conduct ESA consultation and permit procedures |
a.Develop Section 10 permit applications, develop Section 7 biological assessments and participate in consultations, write ESA related reports, and assist with HGMP development. |
ongoing |
$14,062 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Trap, spawn and rear up to 1.5 million spring chinook salmon for release into the Clearwater River Basin. |
2003 |
2006 |
$4,537,639 |
| 2. Rear up to 1.75 million B-run steehead smolts for release into the Clearwater River Basin. |
2003 |
2006 |
$2,234,957 |
| 3. Mark juvenile spring chinook salmon and steelhead. |
2003 |
2006 |
$369,169 |
| 4. Conduct fish health program. |
2003 |
2006 |
$444,960 |
| 5. Conduct ESA procedures. |
2003 |
2006 |
$63,639 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $1,774,975 | $1,863,724 | $1,956,910 | $2,054,756 |
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 |
|
$543,477 |
| Fringe |
|
$383,596 |
| Travel |
|
$12,550 |
| Indirect |
|
$540,276 |
| NEPA |
|
$210,553 |
| $1,690,452 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $1,690,452 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $1,690,452 |
| 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.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Dec 21, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This is an inadequate proposal that provides little technical information needed for review. It provides little summary information on the purpose and past performance of the hatchery program. Rather, it focuses almost entirely on matters within the confines of the hatchery, which has operated since 1992. The proposal fails to adequately discuss how the hatchery products enter into management strategy and does not indicate what the results have been in terms of fish populations and fisheries. Material in the section on objectives, tasks and methods is organized in those terms, and except for great detail on performance of techniques, are not presented. Qualifications of the project personnel are not shown.
This hatchery appears to be a failed project if the data shown in Appendix 1are taken as presented. Project sponsors need to clarify the data presented in Appendix 1. Are the adults trapped on the line associated with 1988 release, the return of the adults and jacks from the 1988 release? What part of the return came from the smolt release and what part from the pre-smolt release? Do the returns include fish captured in the fisheries? Are adults in the "trapped" column, marked fish from CFH releases?
The goal for this project is to return 12000 chinook and 14000 steelhead adults, and to provide compensation for lost resident spawning habitat. Releases of chinook salmon have been made since 1988 (Appendix 1) and in recent years have approached or exceeded 2 million producing a maximum return of 3,978 in 2001, but only 344 adults in 1999. Even in the best chinook year in recorded history, the return was far short of the project goal for chinook. The steelhead program is not productive. Release of steelhead smolts since 1993 in recent years has approximated ¾ million, but returns have been less that 25 adults in each of the last four return years. It is time to reconsider whether to continue this project or to divert the funds to other strategies for meeting the mitigation goals.
Stock transfers have been discouraged as a management tool, yet an inter-basin transfer of Rapid River fish is practiced in this program. Other than an available source of spawn to fill the hatchery capacity, how can this practice be justified?
What component of the project is supplementation (and how is this defined) and what component is harvest production? Sponsors need to identify the effort to each, and briefly describe M&E. The project does not meet its own broodstock requirements. When eggs from only IHNV-negative fish are accepted from DNFH, doesn't that amount to selective breeding, a practice that also has been discouraged in modern hatchery management methods?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 23, 2002
Comment:
Fundable, but issues remain. The added material seems thorough and is very helpful. The project history is particularly good and helps to explain what is going on. It is evident that all or virtually all effort is directed toward matters internal to the hatcheries and that none or almost none exists regarding effects on ecosystems. It is abundantly clear that the goal is to produce a large number of smolts.
Some effort is being made to help preclude genetic problems with hatchery broodstocks. One strategy is to cull the eggs from adults that show high levels of certain pathogens. However, that effort could be counter-productive if these characteristics are heritable and correlated traits are affected by the culling, or if "select" fish survive to spawn in aggregations of wild fish.
The response clarified the appendix table, and qualifications of the project personnel were provided as requested. For the Clearwater Fish Hatchery, the proponents provided a detailed and thorough response to the IHNV issue raised in the ISRP's preliminary review.
Respondent states (pg.46) that NMFS has supported LSRCP so the benefits have been produced without causing"... significant negative effects to critical wild fish populations." The basis for that conclusion by NMFS should be included in documents prepared for technical review and public information.
The response on pages 47-49 is inappropriate. Many hatchery-supported programs in the basin are being managed so as to prevent "domestication" of the hatchery product to help preclude deleterious effects in mixtures of hatchery and wild fish spawning in nature. This includes efforts to prevent selective breeding. The culling practiced in this project may be selective breeding and may contribute to the "domestication" problem that others are attempting to prevent.
Idaho's biologists are working hard to meet the goals of their part of the program. They state on page 47"... we believe we are implementing a progressive hatchery program that remains dedicated to meeting LSRCP and IDFG goals." However, in regard to the ISRP concern about how fish produced by LSRCP are incorporated into the ecosystem, there was inadequate response. The concerns expressed in this ISRP comment must be addressed by system managers/administrators. This large hatchery program should not be operated in isolation from other elements of the Columbia River program. In come cases, efforts to meet LSRCP goals with fixed physical capacity include "improving" survival of the hatchery fish; efforts that are likely to reduce variability, cause selection, and generally further the domestication process.
For the McCall and Sawtooth fish hatcheries and the related Fish Monitoring project (200119), the response presents an itemization of research projects on pages 51-53, but the results and methods are not presented in sufficient detail to assess the scientific credibility of these projects. Our preliminary recommendation was to not provide funds for unspecified research. The response does not provide enough detail to change that recommendation. The ISRP also recommends that additional emphasis should be placed on submitting research results for publication in the fisheries literature. Clearly some of the research projects in progress appropriately fall more in the realm of management monitoring for which annual reports are adequate, but the program should produce some work that is publishable. Indication of that to date, however, was absent from the proposal and from the vitae of the two Fisheries Research Biologists.
The goal for this project is to return 12,000 chinook and 14,000 steelhead adults, and to provide compensation for lost resident spawning habitat. Releases of chinook salmon have been made since 1988 (Appendix 1) and in recent years have approached or exceeded 2 million producing a maximum return of 3,978 in 2001, but only 344 adults in 1999. Even in the best chinook year in recorded history, the return was far short of the project goal for chinook. The steelhead program is not productive. Release of steelhead smolts since 1993 in recent years has approximated ¾ million, but returns have been less than 25 adults in each of the last four return years. It is time to reconsider whether to continue this project or to divert the funds to other strategies for meeting the mitigation goals.