FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199801006

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Administrative office equipment acquisition

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

A response is requested, however, concerning the PIT tagging of the F1 juveniles. Section 8 of this proposal indicates that 8,000 PIT tags are included (Objective 3.1). It is not evident from the text, however, if this is the total number of PIT tags allocated to all three populations (are other PIT tags provided by other sources, etc.), and how are these tags allocated between stocks, treatments, and families? This concern needs to be clarified in this proposal. A statistical basis to the tagging program would clearly strengthen this proposal.

In a past review, there was a question concerning overlap between this program and M&E associated with the conventional hatchery production activities. Our understanding is that these M&E tasks are discrete. However, there is an important question associated with these marking programs. The comparison of natural, conventional, and captive brood production will obviously be based on the extensive use of PIT tags in many of the proposals reviewed. Have the co-managers considered the adequacy of marking rates to compare these three types of spring chinook production, and if so, what level of difference in performance may be detectable? This latter issue is not only relevant to this one proposal, but other NPT proposals have noted methods for estimating the numbers of PIT tags required for comparisons. The NPT may be able to advise on this question.

Comment:

Comment:

In a past review, there was a question concerning overlap between this program and M&E associated with the conventional hatchery production activities. Our understanding is that these M&E tasks are discrete. However, there is an important question associated with these marking programs. The comparison of natural, conventional, and captive brood production will obviously be based on the extensive use of PIT tags in many of the proposals reviewed. Have the co-managers considered the adequacy of marking rates to compare these three types of spring chinook production, and if so, what level of difference in performance may be detectable? This latter issue is not only relevant to this one proposal, but other NPT proposals have noted methods for estimating the numbers of PIT tags required for comparisons. A statistical basis to the tagging program would clearly strengthen this, and related, proposals.

Comment:

Comments
Continuing program. Opportunity should be taken to assess monitoring aspects and their relationship to FCRPS Biop. Should benefit from RPA Action Item 176.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
Base

Comment:

The Nez Perce project implements and evaluates the captive broodstock program through the collection of juvenile salmon from the wild and maintaining them in captivity and releasing the subsequent generation in the wild. The project sponsors sought additional funds above the FY01 base to provide additional staffing for the captive spawning and evaluation of increasingly larger data sets.

ISRP supported the project but made the following observation: "The comparison of natural, conventional, and captive brood production will obviously be based on the extensive use of PIT tags in many of the proposals reviewed. Have the co-managers considered the adequacy of marking rates to compare these three types of spring chinook production, and if so, what level of difference in performance may be detectable?" Bonneville echoed these comments, but supported the project as fundable. NMFS considered the project as BASE for Biological Opinion implementation.

This project is subject to programmatic issue 12. The Council has provided guidance and conditions for funding these types of projects for several years. The Council established general conditions on its funding recommendations for these types of projects in its Fiscal Year 2000 recommendations that remain applicable. The above project, and others (Salmon issue 1) that may be developed: (1) should be funded only to maintain the scope and intensity of existing, previously Council recommended, activities until a basinwide prioritization of target populations and programs is developed (no expansion or new starts); (2) must demonstrate how they are consistent with the policies and standards in the Artificial Production Review report of 2000; (3) must address the project specific issues raised by the ISRP Mountain Snake Province Review Recommendations (2001 12-A); document how the projects address the elements of Captive Propagation Technology in Recovery of Anadromous Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS 1999), outlining steps that sponsors should proceed through when sponsoring a captive propagation initiative.

The Council supports the request for the additional funding. Because the additional funds are for tasks and objectives that are within the existing scope, the Council is able to recommend them under the programmatic issue conditions. The Council recommends increasing the budget for Fiscal Year 2002 by $14,330 over the base budget. The Council believes that the sponsor should address the ISRP project-specific question on marking rates, as well as the programmatic issues related to consistency the APR and the NMFS Captive propagation document (NMFS 1999) in its the submission of the M&E phase for the Northeast Oregon Hatchery as part of its three-step review (see Grande Ronde Issue 2).

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website