FY 2000 proposal 198335003

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

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays in construction of NPTH production facilities will limit abiltiy to apply and evaluate consist supplementation actions.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a proposal for monitoring and evaluation of a proposed hatchery. If this hatchery is to be built, its results should be monitored and evaluated. This project is large; its magnitude may not be recognized by the proposers. The numerous objectives seem well selected, except for parts of the first objective, which do not appear to be appropriate, engineering design and construction presumably should fall under proposal 8335000. The approaches and methodological strategies are generally well described, but some of field techniques are unclear. For example, it is not made clear in all cases what kinds of gear will be used to sample fish, what the sampling design will be or what the statistical methods will be.

From a programmatic standpoint, the panel was concerned about continued funding of such artificial production activities like this one without evaluating its effects on wild stocks. It would be dangerous for the Council to say that the region can more aggressively pursue artificial propagation and then manage diversity back into the populations. The region should be doing all it can to preserve natural production.

The Peer Review Group had specific comments on some proposal objectives: Objective 2 - The monitoring of genetic structure seems to have only one basis. That is, that if there is a loss of genetic variation then the genetic information will be available to make crosses required to re-constitute the desired variation. That is not the appropriate view for managing a program that is directed to increasing abundance while protecting natural variability. Methods for this objective include monitoring of stocks both from in-basin, and out-of-basin sources. Out-of-basin sources should not be permitted in programs directed to protection of gene diversity and natural production. Again, the genetic monitoring will not provide any insight into the " ... effects of introducing hatchery-reared chinook and coho salmon." The "determinations" and answers outlined cannot be obtained by the proposed methods. Objective 3 - This is a plan based on a naive foundation that managers can develop what is needed to maintain diversity in these runs. Why not think in terms of using brood stock from the different locations, or brood stock that returns to the different locations?

Objective 4 - Although left unstated, monitoring in both treatment and control streams or the impact of improved ocean conditions must be incorporated, or other out-of- basin improvements will not be included in the accounting.

Objective 5 -- Calculations of parr-to-adult survival rates seem not to take adult harvest into account.

Objective 6 -- How will recruits (at what life stage?) per spawner be measured?

Objective 7 -- The description of methods is too vague. What "intraspecific interactions" will really be measured? "Direct interaction of hatchery and wild salmon" is mentioned, but there is no explanation of how they're going to observe these behaviors and what direct behavioral parameters will be measured. Will there be treatment and control streams? Treatment and control stream sections? A genuine plan for this objective does not seem to have been made.

Objective 8 - Monitoring for disease seems to be the "thing to do." However, it never makes a difference until an epizootic occurs and then you don't need monitoring to see it. This kind of work should be directed to preventing rearing conditions that result in epizootics. Furthermore, the methods are not spelled out. The statement that "sampling, diagnostic, and statistical analyses will conform with NWFH Survey protocols and procedures" doesn't constitute a discussion of methods.

Objective 9 - Don't we already know that predator abundance will follow prey abundance? Again, it seems that the appropriate question concerns the significance of this predation, and what can be done about it short of eliminating (probably impossible) other species? Also, while sub-objectives are stated, there is no discussion of methods.

Objective 11- Methods for estimating stream productivity for salmonids are not satisfactory.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: Project 8335000 seeks to implement construction of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery supplementation program to assist in the recovery and restoration of non-listed spring chinook and ESA-listed Snake River fall chinook in the Clearwater subbasin Project 8335003 proposes to continue implementation of a comprehensive ecosystem approach to monitoring and evaluation (of up to 83 performance variables) of the proposed Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to determine success of restoring salmon populations and avoiding adverse ecological impacts in the Clearwater subbasin.

ISRP Reviews: 1) Facility construction (8335000) Do not fund in the initial and response reviews. 2) M&E (8335003) Fund in part. Those aspects of the project to collect baseline data needed to evaluate the long-term goals of enhancement in the Clearwater Basin appear valuable; however, those aspects that are dependent on the hatchery should be removed.

Policy Issues Identified by Sponsor: The NPT specified that the following policy criteria applied to their project. Criteria "a" due to what they view as an ISRP misunderstanding of the previous reviews and proposals and the ISRP's questions regarding the use of hatcheries (i.e. supplementation) for any recovery efforts in the basin. Criteria "b" due to the numerous approved and adopted program measures relating to the NPTH. Criteria "c" due to the two decades of commitment to NPTH as it directly relates to obligations imposed by the Act regarding mitigation and enhancement of fisheries resources. Criteria "e" due to the possible failure to secure the lands needed for the project. (See Part 1(b)(5) for explanation of the criteria).

Discussion and Council Recommendations: The monitoring and evaluation project and the facility project are linked. The ISRP recommendation to eliminate the hatchery-related elements of the monitoring and evaluation project was clearly made because the ISRP recommended that the hatchery itself not be built. Therefore, the Council's approach will be to treat these projects as a pair, and seek to insure consistency in its final funding recommendations.

Council members and Council staff met numerous times throughout the summer and fall to review the NPTH hatchery proposal in light of the program language, prior Council action in previous steps of the project, and the Fiscal Year 2000 ISRP recommendations. On November 10th, Council staff, NPT staff, and BPA staff met regarding the NPTH proposal. At the conclusion of this meeting, Council staff requested that the sponsor submit by November 24th a proposal including:

1. a statement indicating that it had successfully developed a "low cost/small scale" facility (not to exceed $16 million dollars) and include in that statement a list of the facilities proposed to be built and also proposed production numbers for each facility;
2. a presentation of the trade-offs associated with a reduction in the scale of the project and elimination of specific elements of the experimental design along with the associated risks;
3. a presentation on establishing "biological triggers" for consideration of subsequent phases of the facility; and
4. a brief presentation of a proposed monitoring and evaluation plan, including a plan for collaboration with the ISRP on that plan.

On November 24, 1999, the NPT responded to the Council's request for a revised project for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. Documents submitted addressed all of the items requested by the Council at the November 10th meeting. The staff found, and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Committee, that the submittal captured the intent of the numerous meetings and correspondence that had occurred over the past year regarding this proposal. The NPT addressed in an adequate way the "low cost," small-scale" language of the program measure while maintaining production needs to achieve their goals and objectives. This has partially been accomplished by developing temporary and portable facilities. In addition the production numbers are complimentary to the requirements of their extensive monitoring and evaluation plan.

Fish and Wildlife Committee Review: The Committee reviewed the November 24 submission, and found it to be responsive to the elements the Council sought to have addressed. There was concern within the Committee that a statement in the narrative of the November 24 submission sought to bind the Council to future expansion of the facilities. The Committee did not believe future Councils can or should be so bound, but indicated that the Council's final approval (to proceed with construction after Step 3) should include a statement that meeting the "triggers" or "milestones" are an indication of sufficient success that the recommendation is that expansion should proceed, as this is what this Council contemplated.

The Committee had considerable concern that the biological triggers, particularly the fall chinook trigger, proposed by the NPT did not "set the bar high enough" if these milestones were supposed to be indicators of not only success of the first phase of the project, but such robust success that the project should be expanded significantly. Discussions at the Committee meeting (that included representatives of the NPT) indicated that the Council and sponsor could further discuss appropriate triggers or milestones as the project moved to final design. The Committee stated that selecting the appropriate biological triggers or milestones for future expansion is primarily a policy issue for the Council to establish, but recognized that the ISRP may help with ensuring that the technical aspects of them are appropriate. The Committee recommendation was next considered by the full Council.

Council Recommendation: The Council found the proposal detailed in the November 24 submission to be significantly reduced in scale and intensity from the original proposal. This reduction directly addressed what appeared to the Council to be the ISRP's primary criticism of the original proposal ("untested concept at too large a scale"). The Council also found significant the sponsor's willingness to work with the ISRP on the design of the monitoring and evaluation program for the facility. The Council's expectation is that this collaboration and ISRP review and approval will address many of the concerns noted by the ISRP on M&E design and implementation. Finally, the Council believes that the requirement of establishing biological triggers for possible future expansion speaks to the ISRP's criticism that expansion of supplementation experiments in the basin should await a demonstration of the success of the technique.

The Council approves expenditures to proceed with the completion of final designs and other associated tasks that are specific to the Step 3 submittal that is anticipated in March 2000. This submittal package will include the requested information as outlined in the Step 2 decision document (as outlined and supplemented in a letter addressed to Silas Whitman dated November 13, 1998). This submittal also needs to include a schedule for the estimated cost expenditures for future needs (ten years) for this project. Additionally, it is critical that this submittal follows the intent of the November 24, 1999 letter received by the Council from the Nez Perce Tribe.

Additional items that need to occur prior to a final decision on construction includes the review and approval of the M&E plan by the ISRP (submittal date - January 2000). As part of the ISRP review the Council will also request their review and advice on the "biological triggers" proposed by the Nez Perce tribe in its November 24 submittal. There are two general issues for the ISRP regarding the triggers. First, are the proposed "biological triggers" appropriate indices in light of the M&E plan? Is the M&E plan designed to function in a manner that permits the tracking of the indices? Second, the ISRP will be asked to give its advice, if possible, on the question of whether or not the standard or "bar" set for each of the indices is generally recognized as being set at a level that would indicate robust success for the artificial propagation program. To assist the Council and the ISRP in their consideration of the proposed biological triggers, the Council requests that Nez Perce staff provide Council staff with an explanation of how the proposed triggers were selected. The Council will consider the ISRP's advice on these two general issues in its effort to reach agreement with the Nez Perce Tribe on the appropriate biological triggers.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website