FY 1999 proposal 9093
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 9093 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Consumptive Sturgeon Fishery-Hells Canyon and Oxbow Reservoirs |
| Proposal ID | 9093 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resource Management (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dave Statler |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2084767417 / daves@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Snake |
| Short description | Evaluate 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.
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.
Comment:
Fund project in FY99 as soon as money is identified in the BPA Quarterly ReviewComment:
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.