FY 1999 proposal 9093

Additional documents

TitleType
9093 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleConsumptive Sturgeon Fishery-Hells Canyon and Oxbow Reservoirs
Proposal ID9093
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resource Management (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDave Statler
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2084767417 / daves@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Snake
Short descriptionEvaluate the potential for a put-and-take sturgeon fishery at Hells Canyon and Oxbow Reservoirs, including an assessment of production capacity at the existing Nez Perce Tribe sturgeon rearing facility, Clarkston, WA and of a trawl-and-haul program.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $80,000
Fringe $21,600
Supplies $38,850
Operating $25,000
Tag $2,900
Travel $7,900
Indirect $73,750
Subcontractor $0
$250,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$250,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$250,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Initial white sturgeon used for experimental supplementation may be obtained from commercial sources or through a trawl-and-haul process. Availability of sturgeon stocks/sizes/ages and/or the identification of sources for trawl may delay experimental release of fish and subsequence evaluation and monitoring of growth, survival and carrying capacity of the reservoirs tentatively scheduled for 06/1999.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The goal of this project is to provide a consumptive sturgeon fishery above the free flowing section of the Snake River by augmenting fish in areas where there is no natural reproduction. Sturgeon in Hells Canyon and Oxbow pools are isolated from other populations. Catch-and-release fisheries are not consistent with the Nez Perce Tribe's goals. This project is consistent with the MYIP and has been on the books since 1994-95 but has not been high enough on the priority list.

Questions/Answers:

Does the project result in a future need for new or upgraded facility? Answer: In the beginning we want to use an existing facility for early rearing. It could be cost-effective to purchase fish from the College of Idaho. Another alternative is to use trawl-and -haul from other areas as part of a put-grow-take operation. This would be one of the few opportunities to harvest sturgeon.

The objective is 250 sturgeon per pool for $250,000. It looks like $50,000 per fish. Response: The costs include follow- up investigations and monitoring and evaluation.

If 90cm is the minimum catch-size and they grow at 6 cm /year, what is release size of the fish? Answer: It depends on where we obtain the fish, we are interested in multiple year-classes. We did an equilibrium release model to determine what to stock annually.

Are there currently sturgeon in the reservoir? Answer: Not to my knowledge - unless they are remnants left from before the area was blocked.

Would habitat rehabilitation be more cost-effective than stocking hatchery fish? Answer: The spawning habitat is just not there. Can you use the existing stock for brood stock? Probably, if we can catch them.

Who owns and operates the reservoirs? Answer: Idaho Power (IPC).

What is the risk of introducing diseases (viruses) which could spread to downstream self-reproducing stocks? Answer: Viruses have been isolated from wild juveniles. Pathogens are in the system already and were not created in the hatcheries.

If the NPT and IDFG have different goals (e.g. catch-and-release versus consumptive harvest), how do you work that out? Answer: We have not had negative feedback. We will be happy to work with the other co-managers (i.e. IDFG and ODFW).

Can IPC pick up funding? Answer: I don't know, we haven't asked and it is not on the books.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes

General Comments: The project proponent needs to coordinate with ODFW and WDFW. Pursue cost share with IPC/ FERC.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Fund project in FY99 as soon as money is identified in the BPA Quarterly Review
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is for evaluation of a put-and-take sturgeon fishery. Although a measure addresses this, the action also conflicts with many others measures. The proposed work is not biologically supportable. Although the activities have strong potential to affect other organisms, there is no monitoring and evaluation for populations other than sturgeon, so effects on other organisms cannot be detected.