FY 2000 proposal 199500600

Additional documents

199500600 Narrative Narrative
199500600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleShoshone-Bannock/Shoshone Paiute Joint Culture Facility
Proposal ID199500600
OrganizationShoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid C. Moser
Mailing addressP.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203
Phone / email2082383761 / rezfish@poky.srv.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Snake Upper
Short descriptionPlanning, development, and operation of a hatchery facility to provide native trout for re-introduction of stocks affected by hybridization, habitat loss, and exploitation on the Duck Valley and Fort Hall Reservations
Target speciesYellowstone cutthroat trout and redband trout
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1992 Feasibility study report, joint culture facilities for the resident fish substitution program on the Snake River above Hells Canyon in Idaho, CH2M Hill, Boise, ID
1996 The Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes master plan for the Fort Hall resident fish hatchery, Montgomery Watson, 671 Riverpark Lane, Suite 200, Boise, ID
1997 Emerson, S. and L. Boreson, PI J.R. Galm. 1997. Cultural resources survey of three proposed fish hatcheries in southeastern Idaho, Bingham and Power Counties #534, Archaeological and Historical, Eastern Washington University.
1998 Upper Snake River Fish Culture Facility, Environmental Assessment, DOE/EA-1213, Bonneville Power Administration, PO Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208
1998 Purchase of property and transfer in trust to the Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9201000 Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Fort Hall Reservation Provides conditions for re-introduction of native Yellowstone cutthroat trout on Fort Hall Reservation

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel One FTE, two part time personnel $54,000
Fringe 34% of salarys $18,360
Supplies Additional funds necessary for hatchery startup. $61,000
Operating Feed, power, oxygen $61,000
Travel $3,000
Indirect 28% of Salary and Fringe $20,261
Other Pickup lease $5,000
Subcontractor Genetic inventory of native fishes $60,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$282,621
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$282,621
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
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.

Fund in Part
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund in part. The ISRP recommends funding for Objectives 1-4 only. These first four objectives are slated for completion in June of 2001. These objectives provide valuable survey work on native fishes and the habitats that support them. These objectives could be folded into 9200100, which contains related habitat restoration efforts; the name of project 9200100 also better describes this work. Objectives (5 – 8) should not be funded without a more scientifically sound approach to establishing the need for and feasibility of a hatchery component. The ISRP does not support the hatchery development and fish-stocking portions of the proposal. If a hatchery is supported at all, it should focus on the possibility of using Yellowstone cutthroat or other native species. Nevertheless, the hatchery effort is premature.

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.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

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

Fund in part
Oct 29, 1999


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.

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.

Fund in part
Nov 8, 1999


Fund conditionally
Mar 1, 2000


(6). Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone Paiute Joint Culture Facility, Project ID #9500600, FY00 CBFWA Rec. $282,621

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: