FY 2000 proposal 199500600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule constraints include; delays in construction of hatchery facility, completion of NEPA for outplanting of native fishes, unforseen problems within hatchery populations.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal includes two hatchery efforts, one of which might eventually be supportable and one of which is highly unlikely to be a biologically sound program. The first involves production of native cutthroat to foster reintroduction of the species. This could be desirable, though taking of small populations for hatchery broodstock can be a dangerous strategy and the risk may not be warranted. The second, and clearly unsupportable, involves production of domestic rainbow trout, which are one of the causes of problems for the cutthroat that the first hatchery effort is proposed to address.

The first component of the work includes a valuable survey of existing cutthroat stocks on Fort Hall, as well as redband trout on the Duck Valley Reservation. A hatchery may not be needed at all, and may not be effective, given that habitat rehabilitation is likely to allow cutthroat trout to increase in abundance and that there are significant risks to cutthroat of rainbow introduction and collection from and stocking into small populations of fish. Another objective is habitat improvement, focused on streams with populations of native cutthroat or redband, as well as collection of baseline data on the streams that have supported these populations. Some methods for evaluation are sketchy, for instance, how well creel surveys can be used to establish whether put-and-take fisheries reduce fishing pressure on native stocks or whether stocking is successful (which presumably includes no escapement of stocked fish). The proposal needs more clarification regarding interaction with the 9200100 on site selection, stream repair, and budget items, anyway. It's not clear in the project objectives how coordination takes place. It would be useful to cast the survey work in an explicit comparative and hypothesis-testing framework. Can desirable stream conditions for the fish be identified from where they have thrived or maintained themselves? Can the most effective or economical remediation be identified by careful assignment of treatments to streams and reaches which are monitored for comparison to control streams? Objectives 1-4, for 1999-2001, are biologically supportable and likely to benefit fish and wildlife.

The broodstock and hatchery production programs (Objectives 5-8) are not warranted for funding. Reviewers doubt, for instance, that the authors can demonstrate that the put-and-take fisheries will relieve pressure on native populations and that the stocked fish can be kept from escaping. The ISRP was concerned that this component of the project will not accomplish the stated objectives. Establishing a put-and-take fishery for rainbow trout does not increase the probability of persistence of native Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Providing a substitute for native fishes may actually reduce support for assuring their persistence. Neither redband nor "domestic" rainbow trout were native to the Upper Snake River, and they should not be introduced anywhere above Shoshone Falls. If mitigation were deemed essential in the Upper Snake River, then all put-and-take fisheries should be supported by hatchery populations of native cutthroat trout. Additionally, any "domestic" hatchery strain of Yellowstone cutthroat trout used for the purpose of reestablishing wild populations should be associated with a rigorous genetic monitoring and maintenance program. A less expensive alternative would be to obtain gametes from genetically-pure wild native populations that are found in watersheds with characteristics similar to those of the habitat that will be the focus of reintroduction efforts.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- There are no biological objectives yet.

Comment:

The respondents say that the work in objectives 1-4, which were approved for funding, "will quantify and further elucidate the known need for production and re-introduction of native Yellowstone cutthroat trout". This statement lacks scientific justification and leads one to question the overall scientific competency of the proposers. Although the work in objectives 1-4 was judged by reviewers to be well-justified, of value to fish and wildlife, and scientifically useful, it is disturbing to hear that the proposers already are sure what they will find. This is not sound science. The initial proposal (and others from the Fort Hall Reservation) report positive response of native stocks to on-going habitat improvements. Clear justification for beginning stocking of hatchery fish, which might compromise regeneration of existing stocks, is not established. It might eventually be, but adequate data are lacking.

The respondents further state that reviewers do not understand that put-and-take fishery development will surely relieve pressure on native stocks because they are "not a fisheries manager on the Fort Hall Indian reservation". This is not scientific justification, but rather presentation of insiders' knowledge or opinions as fact to be accepted on faith. It does not pass scientific muster. The response also states that "monitoring would be developed to quantify these effects" (i.e., those of put-and-take fisheries on fishing pressure to native stocks), but monitoring and evaluation plans should be in place and subject to review for scientific adequacy before beginning a stocking program. Otherwise, it may be impossible to estimate its effects.

Completion of Objectives 1-4 will provide information needed to evaluate the need and relevance of continuing with the remaining objectives. It is still unclear how the development of a put-and-take hatchery program will enhance the persistence of native Yellowstone cutthroat and redband trout. There is not adequate scientific justification in the responses to recommend funding of objectives 5-8. Prior inclusion in the FWP doesn't necessarily address the questions of scientific merit.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: The goal of the Shoshone Bannock and Shoshone Paiute Tribes' Joint Culture Facility is to produce rainbow trout as well as the experimental holding and propagation of two native trout species (Yellowstone cutthroat, redband trout). Rainbow trout are to provide fish for the "put and take" fisheries in enclosed reservoirs (e.g. Lake Billy Shaw Reservoir) and the Fort Hall Bottoms. In addition to providing recreational and subsistence fishery opportunities, the "put and take" fisheries are intended to ease pressure on native fish stocks.

Measures for establishing Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and Shoshone-Paiute Tribe artificial production facilities have been in the Council's program since 1987. Originally, these measures called for two separate facilities. In the early 1990s, feasibility studies demonstrated that the needs for these two facilities might be met at one site, the program was amended to reflect this finding, and planning has proceeded along that route. In April 1996, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and Shoshone-Paiute Tribe completed the Master Plan for the facility through a contract with Montgomery-Watson Consultants. In 1998, the environmental assessment (EA) for this facility was completed. The master plan and the EA are based on development of this facility at the Crystal Springs Site (otherwise known as Houghland Farm).

The Joint Culture Facility is a three-phase project. The phases are:

• Phase I - purchase of a site, construction of a hatchery facility, and propagation of hatchery rainbow trout for release in enclosed reservoirs.
• Phase II - experimentation to determine appropriate propagation methods for native Yellowstone cutthroat and redband trout in a hatchery setting and limited production;
• Phase III - full-scale production of native trout for planting into historically occupied waters.

At the May 19, 1998, meeting in Spokane, the Council recommended funding for the Joint Culture Facility's final design (i.e. approved Step 2). The final design cost is estimated at $110,000. The Council's action included recommending the purchase of the Crystal Springs site at an estimated cost of $760,000.

This Step 2 review is addressed Phase I as well as portions of Phase II that involves the experiments to determine appropriate propagation methods for native species. The portion of Phase II involving limited production activities and all of Phase III will require further development and a future step 2 and step 3 review before proceeding. After final design is completed for the facility, the Council will proceed with a Step 3 review to consider recommending funding construction and operation of the Joint Culture Facility. As a condition to recommending funding, the Council called for development of a monitoring and evaluation plan. This monitoring and evaluation plan should be developed so that other elements of the project that might be approved at a future date can be incorporated into the plan.

It is anticipated that questions about measurable objectives, project benefits, genetic interactions, and fish health will be addressed by this plan. The monitoring and evaluation plan will need to be submitted to the Council for consideration during the step 3 review.

Another condition to the recommendation was that additional information be developed relative to four technical areas for consideration during the Step 3 review. These include:

1. documentation of the current status of redband trout and other fish resources of concern;
2. evaluation and documentation of the potential, including cumulative, impacts on resident trout in the Fort Hall Bottoms;
3. an expanded evaluation of the possible incidence of, and magnitude of potential impacts of, whirling disease; and,
4. a literature review of the current knowledge regarding propagation and supplementation of native species.

Step 3 documents were scheduled to be submitted to Council earlier this year. To date no step documents have been received.

ISRP Review: Fund in part. Do not fund Objectives 5-8. This proposal received a recommendation for partial funding, with the hatchery component of the proposal not recommended for funding. The reasons for the negative recommendation for the hatchery component (hatchery development and stocking program) were lack of adequate background data on status and trends of currently present native stocks and lack of adequate consideration of jeopardy to them from stocking with hatchery fish.

Sponsor Policy Response: No response was received.

Council Recommendations: Specific language approved by Council for the Joint Culture Facility on May 19, 1998 (step 2 approval) seems to address the concerns that the ISRP identified in their review (see 2 and 3 below). Therefore, it is critical that this language be addressed in the step 3 submittal documents. The step 3 submittal (i.e. final designs) will address only the Phase I as well as portions of Phase II that involves the experiments to determine appropriate propagation methods for native species as outlined in the Step 2 decision by the Council. The portion of Phase II involving limited production activities and all of Phase III will require further development and a future Step 2 and 3 review before proceeding. After final design is completed for the facility, the Council will proceed with a Step 3 review to consider a recommendation for funding construction and operation of the Joint Culture Facility.

1. Recommend that Bonneville fund final design of the Joint Culture Facility Project for Phase I and elements of Phase II that address experimental holding and propagation of native Yellowstone cutthroat and redband trout. This would include funding the purchase of the Crystal Springs Site.

2. The recommendation for funding final design is conditional on the development of a monitoring and evaluation plan for Phase I and elements of Phase II addressed above. This monitoring and evaluation plan should be developed so that elements of Phase II and Phase III that might be approved at a future date can be incorporated into the plan. It is anticipated that questions about measurable objectives, project benefits, genetic interactions, and fish health will be addressed by this plan. The monitoring and evaluation plan should be submitted to the Council for consideration during the Step 3 review.

3. The recommendation for funding final design is conditional on additional information being developed relative to four technical areas for consideration during the Step 3 review. These include: 1) documentation of the current status of redband trout and other fish resources of concern, 2) evaluation and documentation of the potential, including cumulative, impacts on resident trout in the Fort Hall Bottoms, 3) an expanded evaluation of the possible incidence of, and magnitude of potential impacts of, whirling disease, and 4) a literature review of the current knowledge regarding propagation and supplementation of native species. This information will address peer review concerns.

The Council received a letter from Bonneville on November 18, 1999 requesting clarification on the Step 2 decision that addresses the "experimental holding and propagation of native Yellowstone cutthroat and redband trout." In addition there seems to be confusion by the sponsors regarding the Step 2 decision and the production levels that were used for the master plan (April 1996). This change in the production levels seems to be what is also causing the confusion regarding the intent of the Step 2 decision. It is critical that the production levels and designs for the facilities address the decision made by the Council during the step 2 review.

Changes to the project's intent will be addressed in supplemental master plans or additional step reviews. Finally, recent information received by Council staff indicates that there may be differing objectives or management philosophies developing between the co-sponsors. In short, there is some indication that this facility may suit the needs of the Shoshone Bannock, but not the Shoshone Paiute. If this proves true, there was concern that the proposed design and capacity may not be appropriate as proposed. Therefore, the Council recommends that: 1) a placeholder for Fiscal Year 2000 be established in the amount of the proposal; 2) Council staff determine how the sponsors wish to proceed; 3) if it is determined that both sponsors wish to proceed as proposed, the conditions detailed above will apply to the Council recommendation.

---

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Hold Funds in Placeholder

---