Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198335003

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation
BPA Project Proposal Number 198335003
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program
Business acronym (if appropriate) NPT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Sherman Sprague
Mailing Address 3404 Highway 12
City, State, Zip Orofino, ID 83544
Phone 2084764044
Fax 2084760719
E-mail shermans@nezperce.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin Clearwater
 
Short Description
Target Species Spring and Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytcha), and Coho Salmon (O. kisutch)


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.4M, 7.3B, 7.3B.2, 7.4F, 7.5B.1, 3.2, 7.1B,7.1C, 7.1G, 7.1H
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: O682 - Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery 1998 -2002 Hatchery Operations. 1164 - Section 10 Permit
Other Planning Document References Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Clearwater River Subbasin; Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan and Appendices; Wy Kan Ush Mi Wa Kish Wit (Tribal Recovery Plan); Supplement to Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan; Proposed Snake River Recovery Plan


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1993 Initiated ongoing baseline data (parr densities, juvenile emigration, spawning ground surveys)
1993 Results of Meadow Creek Fish Trapping, Fall 1993 (Johnson 1993)
1996 Completion of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (Steward 1996)
1995 Habitat condition report
1996 Initiated adult escapement analysis (Lolo Creek)
1997 Results of Meadow Creek Fish Trapping for the 1995 Migratory year (Sprague and Johnson 1997)
1997 Steam Conditons and Salmonid Abundance - Meadow Creek (Selway)
1997 Aerial Photograhps of Meadow Creek (selway) (Clearwater Biostudies)
1997 Aerial Photograhps of Meadow Creek (selway)


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Hatchery supplementation program being evaluated No
8909800 Idaho Salmon Supplementation-IDFG Collects necessary data in Crooked Fork Creek (NPTH M&E control stream) No
8909801 Idaho Salmon Supplementation-USFWS Collects data in Clear Creek (NPTH M&E coho treatment stream) No
8909802 Idaho Salmon Supplementation-NPT Relies on 8335003 for collection of ISS data in Newsome, Lolo, and Eldorado Creeks. No
9403400 Assessing Summer and Fall Chinook Restoration in the Clearwater R. Subbasin Currently conducts feasibility and status assessments of fall chinook salmon above Lower Granite Dam No
9801004 M&E of Yearling Snake R. Fall Chinook Released Upstream of L. Granite Dam Currently conducts M&E on fall chinook releases in the Clearwater River. No
9607708 Lolo Creek Watershed Restoration Providing improved habitat and 8335003 monitoring fisheries response No
9607711 McComas Meadows Restoration Providing improved habitat and 8335003 monitoring fisheries response No
9607710 Eldorado Falls Passage Improvement Removal of potential barrier and 8335003 monitoring fisheries response No
8335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery (8335000) Yes
8335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitioring and Eval. (sub-proposal to 8335000) Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Coordinate M&E planning and implementation with the following agencies: BPA, IDFG, USFWS, USFS, NMFS, NPPC, CBFWA, CRITFC,BLM, COE. a. Participate in the twice annual meetings between NPT,IDFG, and USFWS which plans for the production management of Clearwater Anadromous, Dworshak, Kooskia, and Rapid River hatcheries and outplanting from these facilities.
1. b. Participate in the twice annual meetings of the Idaho Salmon Supplementation studies to coordinate NPTH efforts in monitoring baseline conditions and supplementation streams.
1. c. Assist in obtaining permits for production or M&E requiring biological evaluation of effects.
1. d. Complete three quarterly and an annual progress reports of all monitoring activities conducted by NPTH M&E staff.
1. e. Participate in the annual Clearwater Basin Information Exchange meeting.
1. f. Coordinate with NPT Production Division and other M&E projects.
2. Implement genetic resources monitoring plan. a. Collect and analyze allelic, polygenic, and DNA data from hatchery and natural juveniles and adults for evidence of genetic differences between and temporal changes within hatchery and natural populations.
2. b. Determine the potential for adverse effects resulting from exposure to unnatural selection pressures, increased inbreeding, outbreeding depression, and homogenization of formerly distinct gene pools.
2. c. Determine whether supplemented populations are adapted or have the potential to adapt to local environments; use this information to control gene flow among populations and to evaluate hatchery broodstock selection, mating, rearing, and release practices.
2. d. Coordinate data collection and analyses with other genetic monitoring programs currently underway in the Columbia River Basin.
3. Describe life history characteristics. a. Compile and evaluate data on life history attributes (e.g., migration timing) of target species.
3. b. Determine the geographical and temporal distribution of life history types from historical records.
3. c. Delineate the spatial and temporal distributions of spawning, rearing, and migratory life stages of different life history types on maps and phenological (life cycle) charts.
3. d. Identify environmental factors that appear to influence or covary with key life history traits.
3. e. Determine whether desired life history traits can be cultivated through supplementation and maintained by the natural system, or whether external influences will prevent their expression.
4. Monitor population abundance. a. Monitor the density of juvenile spring chinook and coho in permanent index reaches in selected treatment,control, and research streams.
4. b. Operate juvenile (smolt) rotary screw traps on Lolo, Newsome, and Meadow Creeks; expand catch data to estimate juvenile production.
4. c. Monitor adult escapement at Lower Granite Dam and at weirs in Lolo, Eldorado, Newsome, Meadow, Clear, Lapwai creeks, and in Potlatch and American rivers.
4. d. Convert redd counts to spawner abundance by applying an appropriate fish-per-redd factor
4. e. Monitor harvest by sport, commercial, and tribal fishermen.
5. Monitor survival of hatchery and natural chinook and coho salmon across different life stages. a. Estimate progeny-to-adult ratios of coho and spring chinook from weired streams.
5. b. Calculate the survival (Smith et al. 1994) of spring chinook smolts that are PIT-tagged as parr and overwinter either in NPTH streams or in mainstem areas.
5. c. Compare survival across groups, years, and drainages.
5. d. Estimate the proportion of hatchery spring chinook juveniles released into treatment streams that return to those streams as adults.
5. e. Estimate parr-to-adult survival in study streams and smolt-to-adult survival in Lolo and Newsome Creeks
5. f. Estimate adult-to-adult survival rates (i.e., spawner-recruit ratios) for both spring and fall chinook.
6. Monitor reproductive success. a. Collect adult count and spawner survey data from selected experimental streams.
6. b. Estimate stock productivity and derive empirical stock-recruitment relationships for chinook and coho populations.
7. Determine intraspecfic interactions. a. Compare the relative abundance and/or growth of hatchery and wild chinook and coho parr and smolts in streams receiving fry and presmolt outplant.
7. b. Redd surveys and trap sampling will be used to determine reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery fish, and the prevalence of straying.
7. c. Estimate straying rates for NPTH chinook and coho salmon based on recoveries of PIT and coded wire tags in adjacent streams, and hatcheries.
8. Monitor disease interactions. a. Develop a long-term strategy for monitoring the incidence and effects of disease in fish affected by NPTH activities, and develop plans for responding to disease outbreaks, addressing critical uncertainties, and modifying fish health policies
8. b. Assess the health of hatchery chinook and coho salmon in NPTH hatchery facilities.
9. Monitor interspecfic interactions a. Monitor short- and long-term changes in the relative abundance of competitor and predator fish species in NPTH streams.
10. Monitor water quanity and qualty in all study streams a. Assemble historical streamflow and water quality data for NPTH streams.
10. b. Identify flow exceedance values and flood and drought recurrence intervals.
10. c. Measure stream discharge in treatment, research, and control streams at regular intervals over a range of flows. Correlate with streamflows in nearby gauged streams.
10. d. Apply BURP protocols to monitor water quality in selected NPTH streams and mainstem reaches.
10. e. Monitor stream temperatures continuously. Collect and analyze water quality data for significant spatial and temporal trends.
11. Describe production potential of all study streams. a. Delineate, classify, and estimate the surface areas of NPTH stream reaches using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and habitat survey databases.
11. b. Estimate and adjust chinook and coho salmon carrying capacity using the Smolt Density Model of the NPPC.
11. c. Identify seeding levels appropriate for NPTH streams.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/93 12/01/25 quarterly and annual reports 10.0%
2 07/01/98 12/01/25 Genetic structure 5 year reports 5.0%
3 07/01/94 12/01/25 life history characteristics annual reports 4.0%
4 07/01/94 12/01/25 Current status and abundance trends annual reports 40.0%
5 01/01/96 12/01/25 Survival by life stage annual reports 17.0%
6 08/01/97 12/01/25 reproductive success annual reports 2.0%
7 07/01/93 12/01/25 Hatchery:Natural Interation information annual reports 2.0%
8 01/01/00 12/01/25 disease status and history annual reports 5.0%
9 07/01/93 12/01/25 Intraspecific competion annual reports 3.0%
10 01/01/93 12/01/25 Habitat suitability 5 year reports 7.0%
11 01/01/93 12/01/25 Carrying Capacity Estimates 5 year reports 5.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 8 full time regular employees, seasonal employees, administrative and management support $385,014
Fringe 24% taxed and 14% non-taxed $ 65,590
Supplies field supplies, equipment repair, lumber, radio tags, shop supplies $ 23,801
Operating rent, communications, office supplies, training, computer services, copier lease $ 25,802
PIT tags 25,000 $ 72,500
Travel GSA, field per diem, airfare, per deim $ 77,146
Indirect @22.9% $132,214
Other CWT detector, screw trap, weir, CWT materials and tagging costs $127,900
Subcontractor $ 82,880
Total Itemized Budget $992,847


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $992,847
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $992,847
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $960,000 $1,010,000 $1,060,000 $1,110,000
Total Outyear Budgets $960,000 $1,010,000 $1,060,000 $1,110,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays in construction of NPTH production facilities will limit abiltiy to apply and evaluate consist supplementation actions.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bowles, E. and E. Leitzinger, 1991. Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers. Experimental Design to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 89-098. Contact No. DE-BI79-89BP01466. No
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). 1995. Anadromous fish restoration plan: Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit: spirit of the salmon. Volumes I and II. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Portland, Oregon. No
Cuenco, M.L, T.W.H. Backman, and P.R. Mundy. 1993. The use of supplementation to aid in natural stock restoration. In, Genetic Conservation of Salmonid Fishes, J.G., Cloud and G.H. Thorgaard, eds. Plenum Press, New York. No
Johnson, D.B. 1993. Results of Meadow Creek fish trapping, fall 1993. Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resources Management. PO Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540. No
Johnson, D.B., R.E. Larson, and C.R. Steward. 1995. Supplement to the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan. Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries. Lapwia, ID. No
Johnson, D.B., R.E. Larson, and C.R. Steward. 1995. Supplement to the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan. Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries. Lapwai, Idaho. No
Larson, R.E. and L. Mobrand. 1992. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan and Appendices. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. DE-A179-87-BP36809, Project No. 83-350. No
National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS) 1995. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. No
Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (NPT and IDFG) 1990. Columbia Basin System Planning. Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Clearwater River Subbasin. September 1, 1990. Prepared by the Nez No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal is not scientifically sound.

Comments: This is a proposal for monitoring and evaluation of a proposed hatchery. If this hatchery is to be built, its results should be monitored and evaluated. This project is large; its magnitude may not be recognized by the proposers. The numerous objectives seem well selected, except for parts of the first objective, which do not appear to be appropriate, engineering design and construction presumably should fall under proposal 8335000. The approaches and methodological strategies are generally well described, but some of field techniques are unclear. For example, it is not made clear in all cases what kinds of gear will be used to sample fish, what the sampling design will be or what the statistical methods will be.

From a programmatic standpoint, the panel was concerned about continued funding of such artificial production activities like this one without evaluating its effects on wild stocks. It would be dangerous for the Council to say that the region can more aggressively pursue artificial propagation and then manage diversity back into the populations. The region should be doing all it can to preserve natural production.

The Peer Review Group had specific comments on some proposal objectives: Objective 2 - The monitoring of genetic structure seems to have only one basis. That is, that if there is a loss of genetic variation then the genetic information will be available to make crosses required to re-constitute the desired variation. That is not the appropriate view for managing a program that is directed to increasing abundance while protecting natural variability. Methods for this objective include monitoring of stocks both from in-basin, and out-of-basin sources. Out-of-basin sources should not be permitted in programs directed to protection of gene diversity and natural production. Again, the genetic monitoring will not provide any insight into the " ... effects of introducing hatchery-reared chinook and coho salmon." The "determinations" and answers outlined cannot be obtained by the proposed methods. Objective 3 - This is a plan based on a naive foundation that managers can develop what is needed to maintain diversity in these runs. Why not think in terms of using brood stock from the different locations, or brood stock that returns to the different locations?

Objective 4 - Although left unstated, monitoring in both treatment and control streams or the impact of improved ocean conditions must be incorporated, or other out-of- basin improvements will not be included in the accounting.

Objective 5 -- Calculations of parr-to-adult survival rates seem not to take adult harvest into account.

Objective 6 -- How will recruits (at what life stage?) per spawner be measured?

Objective 7 -- The description of methods is too vague. What "intraspecific interactions" will really be measured? "Direct interaction of hatchery and wild salmon" is mentioned, but there is no explanation of how they're going to observe these behaviors and what direct behavioral parameters will be measured. Will there be treatment and control streams? Treatment and control stream sections? A genuine plan for this objective does not seem to have been made.

Objective 8 - Monitoring for disease seems to be the "thing to do." However, it never makes a difference until an epizootic occurs and then you don't need monitoring to see it. This kind of work should be directed to preventing rearing conditions that result in epizootics. Furthermore, the methods are not spelled out. The statement that "sampling, diagnostic, and statistical analyses will conform with NWFH Survey protocols and procedures" doesn't constitute a discussion of methods.

Objective 9 - Don't we already know that predator abundance will follow prey abundance? Again, it seems that the appropriate question concerns the significance of this predation, and what can be done about it short of eliminating (probably impossible) other species? Also, while sub-objectives are stated, there is no discussion of methods.

Objective 11- Methods for estimating stream productivity for salmonids are not satisfactory.


CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This project has been funded under capital construction and should continue to be. This is a required component of the NPT hatchery (Project #8335000).

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$993,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund in part. Those aspects of the project to collect baseline data needed to evaluate the long-term goals of enhancement in the Clearwater Basin appear valuable; however, those aspects that are dependent on the hatchery should be removed. In general, the responses are satisfactory. They nicely explain what will be done and why.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
(1) Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, Project ID #8335000, FY00 CBFWA Rec. $14,590,000; Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation, Project ID #8335003, FY00 CBFWA Rec. $992,847

Discussion/Background: Project 8335000 seeks to implement construction of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery supplementation program to assist in the recovery and restoration of non-listed spring chinook and ESA-listed Snake River fall chinook in the Clearwater subbasin Project 8335003 proposes to continue implementation of a comprehensive ecosystem approach to monitoring and evaluation (of up to 83 performance variables) of the proposed Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to determine success of restoring salmon populations and avoiding adverse ecological impacts in the Clearwater subbasin.

ISRP Reviews: 1) Facility construction (8335000) Do not fund in the initial and response reviews. 2) M&E (8335003) Fund in part. Those aspects of the project to collect baseline data needed to evaluate the long-term goals of enhancement in the Clearwater Basin appear valuable; however, those aspects that are dependent on the hatchery should be removed.

Policy Issues Identified by Sponsor: The NPT specified that the following policy criteria applied to their project. Criteria "a" due to what they view as an ISRP misunderstanding of the previous reviews and proposals and the ISRP's questions regarding the use of hatcheries (i.e. supplementation) for any recovery efforts in the basin. Criteria "b" due to the numerous approved and adopted program measures relating to the NPTH. Criteria "c" due to the two decades of commitment to NPTH as it directly relates to obligations imposed by the Act regarding mitigation and enhancement of fisheries resources. Criteria "e" due to the possible failure to secure the lands needed for the project. (See Part 1(b)(5) for explanation of the criteria).

Discussion and Council Recommendations: The monitoring and evaluation project and the facility project are linked. The ISRP recommendation to eliminate the hatchery-related elements of the monitoring and evaluation project was clearly made because the ISRP recommended that the hatchery itself not be built. Therefore, the Council's approach will be to treat these projects as a pair, and seek to insure consistency in its final funding recommendations.

Council members and Council staff met numerous times throughout the summer and fall to review the NPTH hatchery proposal in light of the program language, prior Council action in previous steps of the project, and the Fiscal Year 2000 ISRP recommendations. On November 10th, Council staff, NPT staff, and BPA staff met regarding the NPTH proposal. At the conclusion of this meeting, Council staff requested that the sponsor submit by November 24th a proposal including:

  1. a statement indicating that it had successfully developed a "low cost/small scale" facility (not to exceed $16 million dollars) and include in that statement a list of the facilities proposed to be built and also proposed production numbers for each facility;
  2. a presentation of the trade-offs associated with a reduction in the scale of the project and elimination of specific elements of the experimental design along with the associated risks;
  3. a presentation on establishing "biological triggers" for consideration of subsequent phases of the facility; and
  4. a brief presentation of a proposed monitoring and evaluation plan, including a plan for collaboration with the ISRP on that plan.

On November 24, 1999, the NPT responded to the Council's request for a revised project for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. Documents submitted addressed all of the items requested by the Council at the November 10th meeting. The staff found, and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Committee, that the submittal captured the intent of the numerous meetings and correspondence that had occurred over the past year regarding this proposal. The NPT addressed in an adequate way the "low cost," small-scale" language of the program measure while maintaining production needs to achieve their goals and objectives. This has partially been accomplished by developing temporary and portable facilities. In addition the production numbers are complimentary to the requirements of their extensive monitoring and evaluation plan.

Fish and Wildlife Committee Review: The Committee reviewed the November 24 submission, and found it to be responsive to the elements the Council sought to have addressed. There was concern within the Committee that a statement in the narrative of the November 24 submission sought to bind the Council to future expansion of the facilities. The Committee did not believe future Councils can or should be so bound, but indicated that the Council's final approval (to proceed with construction after Step 3) should include a statement that meeting the "triggers" or "milestones" are an indication of sufficient success that the recommendation is that expansion should proceed, as this is what this Council contemplated.

The Committee had considerable concern that the biological triggers, particularly the fall chinook trigger, proposed by the NPT did not "set the bar high enough" if these milestones were supposed to be indicators of not only success of the first phase of the project, but such robust success that the project should be expanded significantly. Discussions at the Committee meeting (that included representatives of the NPT) indicated that the Council and sponsor could further discuss appropriate triggers or milestones as the project moved to final design. The Committee stated that selecting the appropriate biological triggers or milestones for future expansion is primarily a policy issue for the Council to establish, but recognized that the ISRP may help with ensuring that the technical aspects of them are appropriate. The Committee recommendation was next considered by the full Council.

Council Recommendation: The Council found the proposal detailed in the November 24 submission to be significantly reduced in scale and intensity from the original proposal. This reduction directly addressed what appeared to the Council to be the ISRP's primary criticism of the original proposal ("untested concept at too large a scale"). The Council also found significant the sponsor's willingness to work with the ISRP on the design of the monitoring and evaluation program for the facility. The Council's expectation is that this collaboration and ISRP review and approval will address many of the concerns noted by the ISRP on M&E design and implementation. Finally, the Council believes that the requirement of establishing biological triggers for possible future expansion speaks to the ISRP's criticism that expansion of supplementation experiments in the basin should await a demonstration of the success of the technique.

The Council approves expenditures to proceed with the completion of final designs and other associated tasks that are specific to the Step 3 submittal that is anticipated in March 2000. This submittal package will include the requested information as outlined in the Step 2 decision document (as outlined and supplemented in a letter addressed to Silas Whitman dated November 13, 1998). This submittal also needs to include a schedule for the estimated cost expenditures for future needs (ten years) for this project. Additionally, it is critical that this submittal follows the intent of the November 24, 1999 letter received by the Council from the Nez Perce Tribe.

Additional items that need to occur prior to a final decision on construction includes the review and approval of the M&E plan by the ISRP (submittal date - January 2000). As part of the ISRP review the Council will also request their review and advice on the "biological triggers" proposed by the Nez Perce tribe in its November 24 submittal. There are two general issues for the ISRP regarding the triggers. First, are the proposed "biological triggers" appropriate indices in light of the M&E plan? Is the M&E plan designed to function in a manner that permits the tracking of the indices? Second, the ISRP will be asked to give its advice, if possible, on the question of whether or not the standard or "bar" set for each of the indices is generally recognized as being set at a level that would indicate robust success for the artificial propagation program. To assist the Council and the ISRP in their consideration of the proposed biological triggers, the Council requests that Nez Perce staff provide Council staff with an explanation of how the proposed triggers were selected. The Council will consider the ISRP's advice on these two general issues in its effort to reach agreement with the Nez Perce Tribe on the appropriate biological triggers.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$992,847
Comment:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund in sequence with 8335003.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$1,816,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$1,816,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$1,816,000
Sponsor (Nez Perce Tribe) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page