| Proposal title | Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 198909803 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christopher A. Reighn |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203 |
| Phone / email | 2082383762 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and rebuilding spring/summer chinook populations in Idaho. Develop recommendations for the use of supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations. |
| Target species | Spring / summer chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1991 |
Identified study areas, brood stocks, facilities to be used. |
| 1992 |
Begin supplementation and monitoring of treatment streams and monitoring of control streams. |
| 1996 |
Annual Report (1992-1995) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes |
| 1996 |
Small scale investigation into chinook salmon supplementation strategies and techniques: 1992 -1994. Technical Reports. Peery, C.A. and T.C. Bjornn. |
| 1997 |
First generation returns, a known brood stock for supplementation is established. |
| 1998 |
Five-year Report (1992-1997) in progress. |
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8909800 |
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game |
Cooperator on ISS Study |
| 8909801 |
US Fish & Wildlife Service |
Cooperator on ISS Study |
| 8909802 |
Nez Perce Tribe |
Cooperator on ISS Study |
| 9005500 |
Steelhead Supplementation Studies |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination |
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery - O&M and M&E |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination of treatments |
| 9405000 |
Salmon River Habitat Enhancement O&M/Monitoring and Evaluation |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination |
| 9705700 |
Salmon River Production Program |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination |
| 9703000 |
Listed Stock Adult Escapement |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination |
| 9102800 |
Monitoring Smolt Migration of Wild Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination |
| 9604300 |
Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement - O&M and M&E |
Reciprocal transfer of data / coordination of treatments |
| 20545 |
Salmon Supplementation in Idaho Rivers (ISS) |
|
| 8909803 |
Shoshone-Bannock Tribea - ISS cooperator |
|
| 8909802 |
Nez Perce Tribe - ISS cooperator |
|
| 8909801 |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - ISS cooperator |
|
| 8909800 |
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game - ISS cooperator |
|
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$97,500 |
| Fringe |
34% of personnel costs |
$33,150 |
| Supplies |
Includes both office supplies, field supplies, maintenance and repair |
$7,000 |
| Capital |
No major equipment purchases over $1,000 are anticipated at this time. |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
6000 |
$17,400 |
| Travel |
Vehicles, lodging, per diem, airfare, meetings |
$34,000 |
| Indirect |
Estimate 29% of personnel and fringe benefits |
$37,888 |
| Other |
Training, Education, Workshops |
$1,500 |
| $228,438 |
Schedule Constraints: The continued decline of spring/summer chinook salmon returning to Idaho resulting in insufficient adult returns to provide target supplementation treatments.
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comments:
This is the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe's portion of the Idaho supplementation study in the South Fork Salmon River, Bear Valley Creek, Valley Creek, West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River, East Fork Salmon River, and Herd Creek. All test sites are in the Salmon River drainage. The role of each stream is not described and readers are referred to the umbrella proposal (which explains the methods at only a general level). ). No progress is described to so no project assessment is possible, although the project (or its parent project) approaches ten years duration. This is the same proposal as the other supplementation proposals except for budget, facilities, and named areas. The reviewers asked: Is there nothing unique about the different study sites that is worthy of mention? Why does the experimental design and statistical approach need to be repeated in each proposal?