FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200104

Additional documents

200104 Narrative Narrative
Appendix 1 Magic Valley Past Accomplishments Narrative Attachment
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Overview Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Magic Valley Fish Hatchery
Proposal ID200104
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTom Rogers
Mailing addressFisheries, P.O. Box 25 Boise ID 83707
Phone / email2083343791 / trogers@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectVirgil Moore, Chief of Fisheries, IDFG
Review cycleLSRCP
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionAs part of the LSRCP, Magic Valley Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear juvenile summer steelhead (steelhead) to meet the mitigation goal of 11,660 adult steelhead upstream of Lower Granite Dam.
Target speciesOncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead
Project location
42.6542 -114.6503 SE quarter of Section 11, SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 12,T 9S, R 15 E
42.6542 -114.6503 Lot 7 NE quarter SW quarter Section 11 SW quarter of the NW Section 12 T 9S R15 E
42.6609 -114.6463 Magic Valley Fish Hatchery
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)


Hatchery RPA Action 169
Hatchery RPA Action 170

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

See Magic Valley Appendix 1
Contributes steelhead for selective adult sport fisheries in Idaho, and treaty and nontreaty adult steelhead fisheries in the Columbia River, 1986-present.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
LSRCP Hatchery Evaluation Studies Provides hatchery steelhead for hatchery evaluation and experimentation.
LSRCP Harvest Monitoring Program Provides hatchery steelhead for sport and treaty mitigation fisheries.
U.S. v Oregon Fall Mangement Agreement, 2001 Provides hatchery steelhead for fisheries and natural production enhancement efforts.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Trap, spawn and rear up to 2 million A-run and B-run steelhead smolts for release primarily into the Salmon River Basin. a.Incubate and rear summer steelhead smolts. ongoing $650,007
b.Transport and release steelhead into the Salmon River Drainage. ongoing $0
2.Mark 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 2.0 million steelhead annually. Mark all juvenile steelhead that may contribute to selective fisheries with an adipose fin-clip. ongoing $81,573
3. Provide fish health exams and disease treatments for juvenile steelhead. a.Provide monthly fish health exams and treatments for juvenile steelhead. ongoing $98,320
4.Conduct ESA consultation and permit procedures a.Develop Section 10 permit applications, develop Section 7 biological assessments and participate in consultation, write ESA related reports and assist with HGMP development. ongoing $14,062
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Trap, spawn and rear up to 2 million summer steelhead for release into the Salmon River Basin. 2003 2006 $2,941,691
2. Mark juvenile steelhead. 2003 2006 $369,169
3. Conduct fish health program. 2003 2006 $444,960
4. Conduct ESA consultation and permit procedures 2003 2006 $63,639
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel $262,367
Fringe $87,723
Supplies $389,631
Travel $9,450
Indirect $94,791
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$843,962
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$843,962
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
Dec 21, 2001


A response is needed. Inadequate proposal. Many of the comments on Project 200103 pertain also to this one. The proposal focuses mainly on matters within the hatchery. It has apparently operated more or less in present form since the mid 1980s. The proposal should include more discussion on how the hatchery products enter into management strategy. It fails to indicate what the results have been in terms of fish populations and fisheries. The abstract fails to give enough overview. It states neither the specific problems the hatchery is intended to remedy nor the results in trying to do so. The abstract indicates that the hatchery's LSRP mitigation goal an adult return of 11,660 steelhead upstream of Lower Granite Dam. To what extent has this goal been met? The project history should answer that question but does not. It merely refers to two reports, and these were not provided to the reviewers. There is an appendix table containing numbers of smolts released, but the proposal contains no discussion of its meaning. The hatchery production goals (smolts to be produced) are not stated, so it cannot even be seen whether in-hatchery goals are being met. The technical and/or scientific background in Section B contains inadequate information on the scientific issues involved. Notably lacking is discussion of the ecosystems into which the hatchery-produced fish will be released, the suitability of the hatchery fish for survival in those ecosystems, and genetic and ecological consequences of imposing the hatchery fish on other organisms in those ecosystems, particularly wild conspecifics and other closely related wild fishes. One aspect of this is mentioned, namely, that "Releases for selective fishery utilization are purposely segregated from key natural steelhead spawning and rearing areas," and this could be expanded upon by stating reasons, etc. 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.
Apr 23, 2002


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.