FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200108
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 |
|---|---|
| 200108 Narrative | Narrative |
| 200108 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Overview Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Nez Perce Tribe Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Evaluation |
| Proposal ID | 200108 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jay Hesse/Paul Kucera |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437145 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jaime Pinkham |
| Review cycle | LSRCP |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Quantifies natural and hatchery adult salmon relative abundance, age and sex composition and dispersion of hatchery salmon in natural production areas, genetic profile within the SFSR metapopulation, and gene conservation (cryopreservation). |
| Target species | chinook salmon, steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.98 | -115.72 | Upper mainstem SFSR area is located between rkm 80 and rkm 111 (upstream of the confluence of the East Fork South Fork Salmon River). |
| 45.0945 | -114.7322 | Big Creek located in the Middle Fork Salmon River drainage, east of Yellowpine, ID. |
| 44.9625 | -115.5008 | Johnson Creek salmon spawning area for cryopreservation sample collection. |
| Sites include South Fork and Middle Fork Salmon River and their tributaries (SFSR, Lake Creek, Big Creek, Marsh Creek, Capehorn Creek, Sawtooth Hatchery) for cryopreservation sample collection. | ||
| 44.1517 | -114.8843 | Sawtooth Hatchery |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hatchery RPA Action 176 |
| RM&E RPA Action 184 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1989 | Conducted multiple intensive ground counts on Big Creek, Johnson Creek, Lake Creek and the Secesh River to enumerate chinook salmon redds to get at trends of abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and origin. |
| 1989 | Completed a Tribal review and report of the LSRCP program in the Salmon River. |
| 1990 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on the South Fork Salmon River (SFSR) to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1991 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning surveyson Big Creek, Johnson Creek, Lake Creek, Secesh River and the SFSR to count chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural origin. |
| 1992 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and natural:hatchery composition. |
| 1992 | Collected seven adult male chinook salmon gamete samples from Big Creek for cryopreservation. |
| 1993 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and natural:hatchery composition. |
| 1993 | Collected ten adult male chinook salmon gamete samples from Big Creek for cryopreservation. |
| 1994 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1994 | Conducted pre-release snorkeling in Buckhorn Creek to document juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead densities prior to McCall Hatchery chinook salmon parr releases. |
| 1995 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1995 | Analysis of the time series of chinook salmon redd count information from our sampled streams from 1957 to 1995 all described population trends in significant decline. |
| 1996 | Conducted multiple intensive spawning ground surveys on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1996 | Collected 22 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples (Lake Creek-3 and SFSR-19) for cryopreservation. |
| 1997 | Conducted multiple intensive ground counts on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1997 | Collected 68 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples (Lake Creek-4, Johnson Creek-7, Big Creek-6, Capehorn Creek-2, Marsh Creek-4 and SFSR-45) for cryopreservation. |
| 1997 | Convened technical meeting with NMFS and IDFG to discuss scientific basis for concern over salmon population persistence in Idaho. Provided population trend analysis on 19 salmon spawning aggregates, estimated pop. abundance and spawner to spawner ratios. |
| 1998 | Conducted multiple intensive ground counts on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1998 | Collected 74 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples (Lake Creek-3, Johnson Creek-17, Big Creek-1, Capehorn Creek-6, Marsh Creek-2 and SFSR-45) for cryopreservation. |
| 1998 | Scatter planted approximately 10,434 chinook salmon parr into Dollar Creek and 34,687 chinook salmon parr into Buckhorn Creek in the South Fork Salmon River subbasin. |
| 1998 | Scatter planted approximately 158,240 chinook salmon presmolts into the South Fork Salmon River. Estimated survival of PIT tagged presmolts from the release location to Lower Granite Dam was 10.1%. |
| 1998 | Conducted pre and post-release snorkeling to document fish densities. |
| 1999 | Conducted multiple intensive ground counts on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 1999 | Conducted spawning ground surveys in Buckhorn and Dollar creeks to look for returning adults. |
| 1999 | Collected 104 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples (Lake Creek-6, Johnson Creek-5 and SFSR-93) for cryopreservation. |
| 1999 | Provided an assesssment of the status of Middle Fork Salmon River and South Fork Salmon River salmon spawning aggregates with a recommended minimum conservation adult spawner escapement goal for each aggregate. |
| 2000 | Conducted multiple intensive ground counts on Big Creek, Johnson Creek and the SFSR to enumerate chinook salmon redds, trends in annual abundance, spawning timing and to collect carcasses for age, sex and hatchery:natural composition. |
| 2000 | Collected 119 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples (Lake Creek-15, Johnson Creek-35, Big Creek-7, Capehorn Creek-1, Marsh Creek-7 and SFSR-54) for cryopreservation. |
| 2001 | Corrdinated re-analysis of South Fork Salmon River chinook salmon genetic data with CRITFC. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Nez Perce Tribe LSRCP Hatchery Evaluation - Blue Mountain Province | Shares technical staff and project costs for LSRCP supplementation program evaluation. | |
| IDFG LSRCP Hatchery Evaluations | LSRCP supplementation evaluation project. Information sharing on hatchery composition on spawning grounds, redd counts in natural production areas, genetic preservation of chinook salmon male gametes, and chinook genetic analysis. | |
| LSRCP Program Office | Provides umbrella coordination of all Lower Snake River Compensation Plan monitoring and evaluation and hatchery production activities. | |
| 199604300 | JCAPE Monitoring and Evaluation Project | Shares staff for spawning ground surveys and information on SFSR adult hatchery origin carcass data from Johnson Creek. |
| 198909802 | Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (NPT) | Comprehensive supplementation program evaluation. Shares field staff and information relating to salmon spawning ground surveys, juveniule emigrant abundance data, chinook SAR data, and carcass information. |
| 198909800 | Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (IDFG) | Comprehensive supplementation program evaluation. Collects chinook redd count and carcass data in the SFSR, PIT tags juvenile emigrant chinook. |
| 199803000 | Chinook Salmon Abundance Monitoring | Adult salmon abundance monitoring project in Lake Creek and Secesh River. Provides information of SFSR adult hatchery origin fish in that system. |
| 199703800 | Salmonid Gamete Preservation | Genetic conservation of chinook salmon and steelhead male gametes in the Snake River basin. Coordinates and shares field staff for cryopreservation sampling. |
| 199902000 | Analyzing the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon | Collects information on chinook salmon redd couints and spatial distribution of redds in the Middle Fork Salmon River |
| 198201300 | Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program | Interrogates CWT tagged chinook salmon. This project provides chinook CWT snouts to IDFG for CWT interogation. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Coordinate all LSRCP hatchery evaluation activities with appropriate, state, federal and Tribal agencies. | Task 1 - Participate in production planning, annual operations planning, marking and tagging, stocking and coordination meetings for all LSRCP facilities in Idaho, Oregon and Washington | ongoing | $42,331 | |
| 1 | Task 2 - Develop and provide annual operational plans for hatchery evaluations. | $0 | ||
| 1 | Task 3 - Provide information and management recommendations for planning and operation of LSRCP hatchery facilities. | $0 | ||
| 1 | Task 4 - Provide technical assistance in describing evaluation studies for Section 10 permits. | $0 | ||
| 1 | Task 5 - Provide updated evaluation activities to modify Section 10 permits as necessary. | $0 | ||
| 1 | Task 6 - Provide annual reports to NMFS and USFWS which summarize project activities relating to chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. | $0 | ||
| Objective 2. Conduct Nez Perce Tribe studies and participate in ongoing LSRCP evaluation studies. | ongoing | $119,505 | ||
| Subobjective 2.1. Conduct chinook salmon spawning ground surveys. | Task 2.1.1. - Conduct multiple ground count chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in Idaho on the South Fork Salmon River (below the adult weir) and in upper Big Creek (Middle Fork Salmon River) in the Salmon River system. | $0 | ||
| 2.1 | Task 2.1.2. - Collect biological information (length, scales, percent spawned, marks/tags, snouts) from all adult chinook salmon carcasses encountered on the South Fork Salmon River below the fish weir and in Big Creek. | $0 | ||
| 2.1 | Task 2.1.3. - Determine hatchery:natural adult composition on the spawning grounds in the South Fork Salmon River, below the adult weir, using known hatchery adipose and ventral fin marked adults. | $0 | ||
| 2.1 | Task 2.1.4. - Coordinate spawning ground survey information with other ongoing projects in the South Fork Salmon River to examine dispersion of McCall Hatchery reared chinook into other tributary streams. | $0 | ||
| 2.1 | Task 2.1.5. - Prepare reports summarizing adult salmon spawning ground surveys. | $0 | ||
| Subobjective 2.2. Develop conservation approach for South Fork Salmon River chinook salmon management. | Task 2.2.1 - Randomly collect tissue for DNA genetic analysis from 60 adult carcasses from Poverty Flat area, McCall Hatchery broodstock, Stolle Meadows area, Johnson Creek, and Secesh River to examine stock structure within the SFSR subbasin. | $0 | ||
| 2.2 | Task 2.2.2. - Develop small-scale experiments addressing contribution of hatchery origin adults to juvenile production. | $0 | ||
| 2.2 | Task 2.2.3. - Develop a “sliding scale” document to guide South Fork Salmon River (McCall Hatchery) chinook salmon production alternatives at various adult escapement levels that promote long-term population persistence. | $0 | ||
| Subobjective 2.3. Assist IDFG with ongoing LSRCP evaluation studies to achieve Nez Perce Tribe participation in the LSRCP program. | Task 2.3.1 – Assist IDFG with evaluation of adult chinook salmon escapement to and upstream of the South Fork Salmon River adult weir. | $0 | ||
| 2.3 | Task 2.3.2. - Coordinate and assist with marking efficiency evaluation for production release chinook salmon at McCall Hatchery. | $0 | ||
| Subobjective 2.4. Coordinate, collect and cryopreserve adult male chinook salmon and steelhead gametes from LSRCP hatcheries and from selected Snake River tributary streams. | Task 2.4.1. - Coordinate and assist in collection of 100 adult male chinook salmon gamete samples, 20-25 per week, over a four to five week period from LSRCP hatchery facilities at the South Fork Salmon River adult weir and at Sawtooth Hatchery for cryop | $0 | ||
| 2.4 | Task 2.4.2. - Assist in field collection of 30 post-spawned adult male chinook salmon from Big Creek, Marsh Creek, Capehorn Creek, Johnson Creek, Lake Creek, South Fork Salmon River, for cryopreservation of male gametes. | $0 | ||
| 2.4 | Task 2.4.3. – Assist with fertilization trial experiments to determine post thaw fertility of cryopreserved male gametes. | $0 | ||
| 2.4 | Task 2.4.4. - Participate in an effort to develop a Snake River basin-wide plan to gene bank listed Snake River male chinook salmon and steelhead gametes. | $0 | ||
| 2.4 | Task 2.4.5. - Coordinate the near term utilization of cryopreserved gametes in all LSRCP hatchery facilities as needs arise (i.e. lack of ripe males in low escapement years). | $0 | ||
| 2.4 | Task 2.4.6. - Report on results of chinook salmon and steelhead gamete cryopreservation efforts and cryopreserved semen fertilization trials. | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Coordinate all LSRCP hatchery evaluation activities with appropriate, state, federal and Tribal agencies. | 2003 | 2006 | $191,570 |
| Objective 2. Conduct Nez Perce Tribe studies and participate in ongoing LSRCP evaluation studies. | 2003 | 2006 | $540,820 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $169,928 | $179,000 | $187,950 | $197,400 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.8 FTE Biologists; 0.2 FTE Technician; 0.6 FTE Office Manager | $52,293 |
| Fringe | $17,958 | |
| Supplies | Office Services, Field Supplies, Materials | $20,325 |
| Travel | Air Travel, Perdiem, GSA Vehicles, Mileage, Training, Food Provisions | $14,262 |
| Indirect | @ 20.9% | $21,998 |
| Subcontractor | DNA analysis of chinook tissue | $35,000 |
| $161,836 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $161,836 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $161,836 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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
Comment:
A response is needed. Sponsors did a reasonable job at putting this large, complex, and important M&E task to paper - well written, with thorough reference list (mainly grey literature). As large as the proposal is, it needs more detail on present results and trends. Insights on evolutionary implications are included in this proposal far more than in most others. The section on objectives, tasks, and methods seems thorough, and limitations seem to be properly recognized. Their task should also include publication - begin with entering the key questions (testable hypotheses) and findings into the proposal.
Assurance should be given that monitoring of natural production is consistent with future plans of project No. 199107300,"Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation" in the Mt. Snake Province.
The background information provided in the proposal is telling in that it comes close to suggesting that extinction will result despite numerous gallant efforts, including supplementation. It is subtly suggested that freshwater habitat may be as productive as possible. Thus, either harvest or other sources of mortality (dams?) must be addressed. The region will continue to ponder these policy decisions, but meanwhile must support projects such as this, if they assist evaluation and monitoring.
Objectives of the proposal are to coordinate and participate in evaluation activities (conducted by others?), conduct spawning ground surveys, and cryopreservation. On the latter, it is difficult to imagine how this increases effective population size effectively, since it preserves only the male component. Thus, future population size will be limited by the availability of female spawners.
On coordination, the poor quality of hatchery proposals herein, compared to this submission, suggests that there is a need for more oversight and evaluation of other related projects. This area should receive the greatest emphasis within the proposal.
On page 3, they state that the project is intended to "monitor post-release aspects of LSRCP hatchery production performance, monitor natural production status and performance, evaluate interactions of hatchery and natural juveniles, promote genetic conservation, and to contribute to the co-management of the LSRCP program." What are the specific objectives for these performance objectives, how is the sampling program designed to detect differences among groups, and what are the end-points? What interactions between hatchery and natural fish are being investigated, how are they being evaluated, and what can you conclude? Evaluation of the relative production from hatchery fish vs. wild fish that are spawning naturally together in the wild should also be an important focus of investigation of the study. What are the specific, quantitative objectives of the genetic conservation component and how will you know when you get there?
The Mt. Snake Project No. 198335003,"Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation" for $1,884,430 is not mentioned in the proposal. We assume there are other projects in the Blue Mt. Province. The relationship of these projects should be explained and justified. Also, note
| 199703000 | Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring | Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | Salmon | $1,033,000 |
| 199703800 | Preserve Salmonid Gametes and Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository | Nez Perce Tribe | Salmon | $1,279,000 |
This is not all of the projects. For the money being given by the Council and LSRCP, a better accounting should be given? This proposal is for $169,928, a relatively modest request.
Comment:
Fundable. Sponsors did a reasonable job at putting this large, complex, and important M&E task to paper - well written, with thorough reference list (mainly unpublished literature). Insights on evolutionary implications are included in this proposal far more than in most others. The section on objectives, tasks, and methods seems thorough, and limitations seem to be properly recognized. Their tasks should also include publication.As large as the proposal is, the ISRP's preliminary review requested more detail on present results and trends. The response was very helpful and adequately addressed this issue. Such material should be included in any future submittal. In addition, the response addressed concerns about coordination of this project with other ongoing projects implemented through the Fish and Wildlife Program (199107300, 199703000, and 198335003). The oversight and evaluation of other related projects should receive the greatest emphasis within this proposal.
The background information provided in the proposal was telling in that it comes close to suggesting that extinction will result despite numerous gallant efforts, including supplementation. It is subtly suggested that freshwater habitat may be as productive as possible. Thus, either harvest or other sources of mortality (dams?) must be addressed. The region will continue to ponder these policy decisions, but meanwhile must support projects such as this, if they assist evaluation and monitoring.
Objectives of the proposal are to coordinate and participate in evaluation activities (conducted by others?), conduct spawning ground surveys, and cryopreservation. On the latter, it is difficult to imagine how this increases effective population size effectively, since it preserves only the male component. Thus, future population size will be limited by the availability of female spawners.
In the original proposal (p. 3), the sponsors state that the project is intended to "monitor post-release aspects of LSRCP hatchery production performance, monitor natural production status and performance, evaluate interactions of hatchery and natural juveniles, promote genetic conservation, and contribute to the co-management of the LSRCP program." While the response was helpful in addressing these concerns, additional detail is still needed on the specific objectives for these performance objectives, how the sampling program is designed to detect differences among groups, and the project's end-points? What interactions between hatchery and natural fish are being investigated and how are they being evaluated? Evaluation of the relative production from hatchery fish vs. wild fish that are spawning naturally together in the wild should be an important focus of investigation for the study. What are the specific, quantitative objectives of the genetic conservation component, how will they be measured, and what will be the benchmarks for project success or failure?
Project sponsors acknowledge the importance of learning the impact of supplementation on natural production. Part of the assessment is to estimate the ratio of hatchery and wild fish on the spawning grounds. The sponsors should outline the specific questions they are trying to answer with the monitoring. Why, for example, are they estimating the hatchery-wild ratios? Is there a specific ratio that should not be exceeded? If so, why was that ratio selected? They need to show that the proposed sampling methods and intensity are capable of providing data that will answer the question in a timely manner?
Finally, what is the basis for continuing to gather samples for genetic analysis and gamete preservation? The sponsors cannot expect to preserve the entire gene pool, so what is the expectation, and can samples presently on hand fulfill that expectation?