Show new navigation
On
  • Log In
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Help
    • Help
    • Help Center
    • Data dictionary
    • EF&W Program documents
    • Request support
    • Send feedback
      • View all help topics
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Mitigation work
    Mitigation work View all mitigation work topics
  • Reporting
    Reporting View all reporting topics
  • Funding
    Funding View all funding topics
  • Search
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal RMECAT-1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RMECAT-1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History


Archive Date Time Type From To By
6/14/2010 3:06 PM Status Draft <System>
Download 7/30/2010 5:07 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
10/15/2010 5:54 PM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
1/14/2011 10:42 AM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
7/7/2011 10:19 AM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Back To Top

Basics

Proposal Number:
   RMECAT-1983-350-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 1
Review:
 RME / AP Category Review
Portfolio:
 RM&E Cat. Review - Artificial Production
Type:
 Existing Project: 1983-350-00
Primary Contact:
 Steve Rodgers-NPT (Inactive)
Created:
 6/14/2010 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 Nez Perce Tribe
Project Title:
 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
 
Proposal Short Description:
 The Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex (NPTHC) mitigates for the effects of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System on naturally-reproducing salmon in the Clearwater River Subbasin. The goal is to release fish that survive to adulthood, contribute to natural production and provide long term harvest opportunities. NPTHC utilizes best management practices (BMP) and Natural Rearing Enhancement Systems (NATURES) techniques to produce 1.4M fall and 825K spring Chinook salmon annually.
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 The Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) authorized construction of Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex (NPTHC) on May 17, 2000 in Helena, MT. Construction began July 2001 and was essentially completed in October 2002. The main hatchery was dedicated October 9, 2002 and began operation in 2003. NPTHC is comprised of two rearing facilities (NPTH and SWS), and 5 acclimation facilities (Luke's Gulch, Cedar Flats, North Lapwai Valley, Newsome Creek and Yoosa/Camp Creek). It is staffed by 16 permanent employees, fulfilling work and standby duties at all seven facilities. Only NPTH is operational all year, the other facilities operate from 2 to 6 months annually. Work area is the Clearwater River, South Fork Clearwater River and Selway River for Fall Chinook Salmon (FCS), and Clearwater River, Lolo Creek (Tributary of the Clearwater River), and Newsome Creek (tributary of the South Fork Clearwater River) for Spring Chinook Salmon (SCS). All work is done on or adjacent to Tribal Treaty lands, supporting historical NPT fishing areas.

The primary goal is to release fish that survive to adulthood, spawn in-basin and produce offspring supporting natural production and genetic integrity.

The general fishery management principles governing NPTHC are:
* Protect, mitigate, and enhance Columbia River Subbasin anadromous fish resources;
* Develop, increase, and reintroduce natural populations of spring, early-fall, and fall Chinook in the Clearwater River Subbasin;
* Provide long-term harvest opportunities for Tribal and non-Tribal anglers within Nez Perce Treaty lands within four generations (20 years) following project completion;
* Sustain long-term preservation and genetic integrity of target fish populations;
* Keep the ecological and genetic impacts of nontarget fish populations within acceptable limits;
* Promote Nez Perce Tribal Management of NPTHC and production areas within Nez Perce Treaty lands.

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (FCS) are listed as an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) and considered to be part of a single genetically similar aggregate and are managed as a single population. The NPTHC program is integrated with production from Lyon's Ferry Hatchery (LFH), the Fall Chinook Acclimation Project (FCAP), and the Idaho Power Company (IPC) mitigation program.

For FCS, returning adults are trapped at Lower Granite Dam and NPTH to meet production goals (532 males & 532 females total). Fish are spawned and early-reared at NPTH. Fish destined for release from Lukes Gulch or Cedar Flats AF's are intermediate reared at Sweetwater Springs (SWS), while all other FCS continue to be cultured at NPTH. After marking/tagging in spring, all fish are transferred to final rearing ponds at NPTH,NLV, Luke's Gulch and Cedar Flats, where they acclimate prior to release by June 15th each year.

The specific annual FCS production release goals for NPTHC are:
* 500K subyearling FCS released at 50 fpp from Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery (NPTH) into the Clearwater River;
* 500K subyearling FCS released at 50 fpp from North Lapwai Valley (NLV) Acclimation Facility (AF) into the Clearwater River;
* 200K subyearling FCS released at 50 fpp from Cedar Flats AF into the Selway River;
* 200K subyearling FCS released at 50 fpp from Lukes Gulch AF into the South Fork Clearwater River.

Specific FCS hatchery adult return goals (from the Snake River Fall Chinook Management Plan pgs. 2-3) for NPTHC are:
* Interim goal of 2,290 hatchery-origin adults above Lower Monumental Dam (LMO) annually from NPTHC production;
* Long-term goal of 3,750 hatchery-origin adults above LMO annually from NPTHC production;
* Provide ~1,000 adults annually for broodstock;
* Develop an early-returning run to the Selway River and South Fork Clearwater Rivers.

Specific FCS natural adult return goals for NPTHC are:
* Interim goal is to achieve a self-sustaining population of 1,250 natural origin adults to the Clearwater River annually;
* Long-term goal is to assist in achieving self-sustaining population of 14,360 natural-origin adults above LMO.
* Assist in achieving ESA delisting.

Spring Chinook Salmon (SCS) in the Clearwater River Subbasin were essentially extirpated by Lewiston Dam (Schoen et al. 1999; USFWS 1999; Murphy and Metsker 1962). However, naturalized populations have been re-established in Lolo Creek and mainstem/tributary reaches of the Lochsa, Selway and South Fork (S.F.) Clearwater rivers (Larson and Mobrand 1992). Founding hatchery stocks used to re-colonize SCS were primarily obtained from the Rapid River Hatchery. Genetic analysis has confirmed that existing natural SCS in the Clearwater River Subbasin are derived from reintroduced Snake River stocks.

The intent of this program is to develop localized brood sources to supplement Lolo Creek, Newsome Creek and Meadow Creek. Because no weir is installed on Meadow Creek (a temporary weir proved ineffective), an agreement was reached with IDFG, whereby they annually early-rear 200K SCS at Clearwater Hatchery for NPTHC. In September, these fish are transferred to NPTH, where they are final-reared until release as smolts the following April into the Clearwater River. Adults returning to the NPTH trap from this release provide broodstock for the Meadow Creek program, and also act as a backup source for the other NPTHC SCS programs.

For SCS, returning adults (from smolts released at NPTH into the Clearwater River) for the Meadow Creek program are trapped at NPTH (146 males and 146 females). Newsome Creek adults are trapped at the temporary weir on Newsome Creek (28 males and 28 females). Lolo Creek adults are trapped at two temporary weirs on Lolo Creek (55 males and 55 females). All three of these temporary weirs are operated by NPTH M&E project 1983-350-03. In 2011, a permanent weir will be constructed on Lolo Creek replacing the two temporary weirs. In the event of a broodstock shortage, adults for any of these SCS production programs may be provided by Rapid River stock SCS trapped at other Clearwater Basin hatcheries.

The specific annual SCS production release goals for NPTHC are:
* 400K parr SCS released at 117 fpp from NPTH into Meadow Creek (trib. of Selway River) by helicopter - no acclimation;
* 150K pre-smolt SCS released at 35 fpp from Yoosa/Camp Creek AF into Lolo Creek (trib. of Clearwater River);
* 75K pre-smolt SCS released at 29 fpp from Newsome AF into Newsome Creek (trib. of South Fork Clearwater River);
* 200K smolt SCS released at 20 fpp from NPTH into the Clearwater River.

Specific SCS adult return goals taken from the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program Enivronmental Impact Statement (BPA et al. 1997) comprised of a broodstock, natural spawning and harvest component for NPTHC are:
* 329 adults returning to Lolo Creek from NPTHC production;
* 171 adults returning to Newsome Creek from NPTHC production;
* 676 adults returning to Meadow Creek from NPTH production.

Production targets, and performance in-hatchery are monitored by NPTHC Management and NPTH M&E Project 1983-350-03. Released fish performance and treatment stream impacts are monitored by the NPTH M&E Project 1983-350-03. Hatchery fish health is monitored by NPTHC staff and USFWS fish pathologists from the Idaho Fish Health Center. All significant program changes are negotiated and agreed to within the NPT and by the comanagers, which include USFWS, IDFG, CTUIR, WDFW, and others.

Project duration is until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above.

The NPT's Department of Fisheries Rersource Management (DFRM) now has the equipment infrastructure necessary to ensure efficient and timely exchange of science-based information on regionally accepted performance measures. With additional funding for a data steward, DFRM annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data will be available on the new DFRM website http://www.nptfisheries.org. Appropriate components of program data and results will also be provided to the following websites: Snake Basin Data Group; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), including: PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS), the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS); Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (STEM); Fish Passage Center (FPC); StreamNet; and NOAA Northwest Science Center. This proposal seeks to enable DFRM participation in regional data management and sharing forums and processes (e.g. PNAMP) as required by RPAs 71 and 72.
Purpose:
 Artificial Production
Emphasis:
 Supplementation
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:
 None
Biological Opinions:

Back To Top

Contacts

Contacts:

Back To Top

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
Relationship to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program The intended goals of the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC 2000) are furthered with the initiation of this project: 1) “Halt declining trends in salmon populations above Bonneville Dam by 2005,” 2) “Restore the widest possible set of healthy naturally reproducing populations of salmon in each relevant province by 2012”, and 3) “Increase total adult salmon runs above Bonneville Dam by 2025”. The 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) calls for artificial production strategies that are implemented within an experimental, adaptive management approach and use monitoring and evaluation to resolve key program uncertainties. The proposed objectives of the project relate specifically to Section 4 “Artificial Production Strategies” and sister project (198335003 – Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation) relates to Section 9 “Research, Monitoring and Evaluation”. Supplementation technology as described in this proposal and sister proposal (198335003) falls within the conceptual framework and strategy established in the FWP. Relationship to Clearwater Subbasin Plan The Clearwater Management Plan (Ecovista 2003) also includes specific adult return objectives for spring and fall Chinook salmon (See Table 3, Clearwater Management Plan, p. 16). For spring Chinook salmon this adult return objective is 60,000 adults and for fall Chinook it is 50,000 adults. Achieving this objective requires a combined application of artificial production strategies, habitat protection and restoration strategies, and mitigation of deleterious out-of-subbasin effects. The application of artificial propagation measures are intended to realize anadromous fish restoration, recovery objectives, mitigation, and harvest goals in Table 3. This project accomplishes priority work under the subbasin plan because it produces spring and fall Chinook salmon directly aimed at achieving goals identified in Table 3 (Clearwater Management Plan, p. 16). This project is consistent with and implements Biological Objective D of the Clearwater Subbasin Plan (page 21): Utilize a mix of hatchery and natural production strategies for native, localized, and reintroduced populations to meet subbasin goals delineated in Table 3 within 25 years. Strategies that this project implements are: • Strategy 1: Maximize hatchery effectiveness in the subbasin -- continue existing and/or implement innovative hatchery production strategies in appropriate areas to support fisheries, natural production augmentation and rebuilding, reintroduction, and research (Management Plan page 21). • Strategy 2: Apply safety net hatchery intervention based on extinction risk analysis and benefit risk assessments (Management Plan page 21). • Strategy 3: Implement artificial propagation measures and continue existing natural production strategies (Management Plan page 21). Relationship to Federal Columbia River Power System 2000 Biological Opinion The proposed objectives of this project relate to 9.6.4 Artificial Propagation Measures, specifically section 9.6.4.3 Actions to Create an Artificial Propagation Safety-net Program. BPA and NOAA Fisheries identified the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery project during the 2002 funding review as addressing Reasonable and Prudent Action (RPA) 177: “This action funds the actual implementation and operation of safety-net projects. Depending on the planning results, specific measures may include funding modifications of existing facilities, or construction and operation of new facilities. The obligation to fund the safety-net program, including O&M, monitoring, and evaluation, will continue indefinitely, as circumstances warrant.” Relationship to Federal Columbia River Power System 2004 Implementation Plan and Updated Proposed Action In the Final Updated Proposed Action for the FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand (USACE et al. 2004) and the 2005-2007 Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System Endangered Species Act Updated Proposed Action (USACE et al. 2005) the Action Agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration determined that “BPA will continue to fund the Snake River fall Chinook component of Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery program as long as NOAA Fisheries considers it to be contributing benefits to the ESU.” Relationship to U.S. vs. Oregon Interim Management Agreement Production of spring and fall Chinook salmon from Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery is agreed to by Columbia Basin fisheries co-managers and mandated in the 2005-2007 Interim Management Agreement (U.S. vs. Oregon 2005) signed by federal, state and tribal salmon co-managers. Relationship to Tribal Recovery Plan Wy Kan Ush Mi Wa Kush Wit (Nez Perce Tribe et al. 1995) recommends implementation of NPTH and production goals are addressed in the Plan. Relationship to Draft Fall Chinook Management Plan This projects FCS goals are taken directly from this plan.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

Hydroelectric and flood control dams extirpated the Clearwater River salmon runs.  In 1910, construction of the Harpster Dam blocked fish passage into the South Fork Clearwater from 1911 to 1935 and from 1949 until 1963 when the dam was removed (Clearwater Subbasin Summary 2001).  In 1927, Lewiston Dam was built at the mouth of the Clearwater River and prevented passage of spring, summer and fall Chinook from at least 1927 to 1940 (Fulton 1970).  Passage facilities were upgraded in the 1950’s, but Chinook salmon counts between 1950 and 1957 ranged from only 7 to 63 fish, indicating that the indigenous run was probably eliminated (Cramer and Neeley 1992).  Harpster Dam was removed in 1963, and Lewiston Dam was removed in 1973, which made most of the Clearwater River once again a free-flowing system.  But a year later, in 1974, Dworshak Dam was completed at the mouth of the North Fork Clearwater River resulting in blocked passage from that large river.   As described in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan (Subbasin Plan)(Ecovista 2003), historical numbers of Chinook salmon entering the Clearwater were thought to be substantial.  The impact on the people and biota caused by the loss of salmon from this 9,600 square mile watershed must be a defining characteristic of the Snake River Basin.   

 Efforts to restore naturally, spawning, spring Chinook have created small, scattered populations and fall Chinook recolonized the lower river to a limited extent by 1987.  Still these runs are limited in number (Arnsberg 1992) and are subject to the same overall conditions affecting all anadromous species of the Snake River.   The Subbasin Plan finds that re-introduction of hatchery origin spring Chinook, following removal of the Lewiston Dam, has resulted in naturally reproducing runs in Lolo Creek, and in the mainstem and tributaries of the three principal head-water rivers; i.e., the Lochsa, the Selway and the South Fork Clearwater.  As described in the Subbasin Plan, spring Chinook salmon are classified as “present – depressed” in all areas of the subbasin where status information is available.  The Subbasin Plan also indicates that fall Chinook returns appear to show some improvement as a result of recolonization and supplementation actions of the Fall Chinook Acclimation Project (Project No. 199801005).  However, these runs are still subject to the same obstacles depressing all naturally spawning salmon runs in the Snake River Basin, which according to the Subbasin Plan is primarily due to out-of-subbasin factors (e.g. dams and ocean conditions).

 The Nez Perce Tribe has a biological, legal, historic, economic, social, and cultural need to restore salmon runs.  The Nez Perce Tribe’s indigenous territory consisted of north-central Idaho, southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon.   The Tribe is a federally recognized entity with sovereign status over its lands, people and resources.  Its governmental rights and authorities extend to any natural resources that are reserved and protected in treaties, executive orders, and federal statutes.  The United States also has a trust obligation toward the Nez Perce Tribe to protect these rights and authorities.  Salmon and other migratory fish species are an invaluable food resource and an integral part of the Nez Perce Tribe’s culture.  Anadromous fish have always made up the bulk of the Nez Perce tribal diet and this dependence on salmon was recognized in the treaties made with the Tribe by the United States.  The historic, economic, social, and religious significance of fish to the Nez Perce Tribe continues to this day, which means that the declining fish populations in the Columbia River Basin has caused a substantial, unique, and detrimental impact on the Nez Perce way of life. 

 The Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery responds directly to a need to mitigate the effects of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System on naturally-reproducing salmon in the Clearwater River subbasin.  The overall goal is to produce and release fish that will survive to adulthood, spawn in the Clearwater River subbasin and produce viable offspring that will support future natural production and genetic integrity. 


Back To Top

Objectives

What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Supplement Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon. (OBJ-1)
Meet defined adult FCS escapement goals identified in the draft Snake River Fall Chinook Management Plan, specific to NPTHC production.

Interim annual hatchery-origin escapement goal is 2,290 adults from NPTHC production above Lower Monumental Dam.

Long-term annual goal is to return 3,750 hatchery-origin adults above Lower Monumental Dam from NPTHC production.

Natural-origin goals of this plan include maintaining an abundance threshold (hatchery and/or natural origin) of 7,500 naturally spawning adults, achieving ESA delisting, meeting a long term goal of 14,360 natural-origin adult FCS above Lower Monumental Dam, and maintaining out of basin straying above Lower Granite Dam at levels less than 5%. NPTHC seeks to assist in meeting these natural goals with other Snake River FCS production programs.

Should NPTHC, as a supplementation hatchery program, meet its objectives, it will also work towards achieving the biological objectives defined in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan.
Supplement Clearwater Spring Chinook Salmon (OBJ-2)
The intent of this program is to develop localized brood sources to supplement Lolo Creek, Newsome Creek and Meadow Creek.

Specific adult return goals from NPTH production are:

Lolo Creek: 329 adults from hatchery production (136 for broodstock, 63 for natural spawning, and 130 for harvest).

Newsome Creek:
171 Adults from hatchery production (69 for broodstock, 42 for natural spawning, and 60 for harvest).

Meadow Creek:
676 Adults from hatchery production (322 for broodstock, 248 for natural spawning, and106 for harvest).



Coordinate project activities, data management, and communicate findings to resource managers. (OBJ-3)
Data management and summary reporting will be conducted by performing specific project tasks (both O&M and M&E). This information will be shared with managers through several ongoing regional communication and review processes such as website databases, summary reports, annual operation plans, and management meetings. Every five years, materials will be summarized to facilitate a performance review of the hatchery program. Successful attainment of this objective will be measured through the timely completion of contractual deliverables related to information dissemination.
Project Maintenance and Capital Improvements (OBJ-4)
Maintain all buildings, grounds, systems, equipment and other project assets. Maximize efficiency and quality through capital improvements.
Regional Decision-Making From Science-Based Shared Data (OBJ-5)
The Nez Perce Tribe's Department of Fisheries Resource Management (DFRM) annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data will be available on the new DFRM website http://www.nptfisheries.org. Appropriate components of program data and results will also be provided to the following websites: Snake Basin Data Group; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), including: PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS), the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS); Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (STEM); Fish Passage Center (FPC); StreamNet; and NOAA Northwest Science Center. This proposal seeks to enable DFRM participation in regional data management and sharing forums and processes (e.g. PNAMP) as required by RPAs 71 and 72.

Meeting this objective will allow managers immediate access to the NPT's science-based data to assist in making management decisions affecting basin-wide populations.

Back To Top

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $2,175,835 $2,229,989
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,148,321 $2,201,790
General - Within Year $27,514 $28,199
FY2020 $2,148,321 $2,246,419 $2,240,104
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,246,419 $2,240,104
FY2021 $2,214,227 $2,254,227 $2,507,710
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,214,227 $2,463,212
Cost Savings $40,000 $44,498
FY2022 $2,214,227 $2,493,020 $2,230,073
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,453,020 $2,194,292
General - Within Year $40,000 $35,781
FY2023 $2,214,227 $2,449,343 $2,121,368
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,354,343 $2,039,089
General - Within Year $95,000 $82,279
FY2024 $2,311,653 $2,311,653 $2,521,646
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $2,311,653 $2,521,646
FY2025 $0 $621,133
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $621,133
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $0 $0
FY2020 $0 $0
FY2021 $0 $0
FY2022 $0 $0
FY2023 $0 $0
FY2024 $0 $0
FY2025 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
BPA operates on a federal fiscal year, from October through September annually. This project is contracted annually from January through December. This is the primary reason expense budget amounts do not match expenditures by fiscal year. Some or all expenditures by NPTH in October, November and December each year, which may get billed to BPA even later, are being charged to the following federal fiscal year contract on the BPA side, because of the budget cycle overlap and delayed billing. This explains why expenditures significantly exceed operating budgets some years, and are significantly less other years. If you total all of the expense budgets from FY04 less 1/2 of the FY10 budget (since that budget year is only 1/2 over at this point), it totals $13,069,820. Total expenses during that same period are $12,463,479. This represents just over 95% spent over the entire period, from FY04 through current. I have been the manager since January '08, covering FY08, FY09 and the current contract. By my actual budget expense tracking, we have spent more than 99% of our contracted budgets both years. From my perspective, our financial performance has been excellent. Regarding capital expense budget performance, it is my understanding that NPTH was given a capital budget to purchase large-expense capital items for operations once the hatchery complex was operating, and several years to spend it. The manager at that time and his employees purchased trucks, tanks, pumps, backup generators, and a multitude of other equipment to meet program goals. They purchased obvious equipment during or just after construction (2002-03), and then added additional equipment after operations began and new equipment needs were realized. I am certain that budget was based on "best-guess" calculations by the manager, but have no documentation or other information to explain inconsistencies between the working capital budgets and actual expenditures reflected in the table. It is my understanding that "most" of the capital monies were spent on capital equipment within contract-identified timelines. This secondary capital expense contract was closed prior to my appointment as NPTH Manager.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
As mentioned in the previous section, based on the table above, NPTH expenditures have been within 5% of approved working budgets since FY04 (the hatchery began operations in 2003). In FY08 and FY09, expenditures were within 1% of approved operating budgets, as invoiced by vendors to the NPT(not to BPA)within the contracted calender budget period. Given the fact this program is new, and actual operating cost information is only now becoming somewhat clear and consistent, this project's historical financial performance has been very good, if not excellent.

Back To Top

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):34
Completed:21
On time:21
Status Reports
Completed:79
On time:47
Avg Days Late:1

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-11032 FY01 land acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2000 09/30/2001 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4504 20668, 25513, 30513, 36059, 40151, 45237, 50764, 55489, 60242, 63480, 67318, 71275, 75325, 74017 REL 17, 74017 REL 35, 74017 REL 60, 74017 REL 77, 74017 REL 92, 84044 REL 9, 84044 REL 31, 84044 REL 53 2025-003-00 EXP NPT ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION O&M Nez Perce Tribe 01/01/2001 12/31/2025 Issued 80 275 35 0 17 327 94.80% 1
Project Totals 80 275 35 0 17 327 94.80% 1

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
25513 J: 162 Interpret data for Hatchery Operations 12/28/2006 12/28/2006
30513 K: 132 06 Annual Report 8/13/2007 8/13/2007
30513 E: 158 Marking/Tagging of Juvenile Fish 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
30513 G: 157 Seasonal Collection & Recording of Data 12/31/2007 12/31/2007
30513 H: 162 Interpret data for Hatchery Operations 12/31/2007 12/31/2007
30513 C: 176 Production of spring Chinook 12/31/2007 12/31/2007
30513 D: 176 Production of fall Chinook 12/31/2007 12/31/2007
30513 F: 61 Facility & Equipment Maintenance 12/31/2007 12/31/2007
36059 G: 157 Seasonal Collection & Recording of Data 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
36059 H: 162 Interpret data for Hatchery Operations 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
36059 B: 176 Production of spring Chinook 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
36059 C: 176 Production of fall Chinook 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
36059 F: 61 Facility & Equipment Maintenance 12/31/2008 12/31/2008
40151 K: 174 Attach Annual Operation Plan in Pisces 11/15/2009 11/15/2009
40151 L: 132 Attach 2008 Progress Report in Pisces 12/20/2009 12/20/2009
40151 F: 157 Seasonal Collection & Recording of Data 12/31/2009 12/31/2009
40151 G: 162 Interpret data for Hatchery Operations 12/31/2009 12/31/2009
40151 B: 176 Production of spring Chinook 12/31/2009 12/31/2009
40151 C: 176 Production of fall Chinook 12/31/2009 12/31/2009
40151 E: 61 Facility & Equipment Maintenance 12/31/2009 12/31/2009
45237 L: 132 Attach 2009 Progress Report in Pisces 5/14/2010 5/14/2010

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
This projects annual progress reports and annual operation plans have been submitted on time and are current. A few quarterly status reports have been late by a day or two. This occurred once when I was new to Pisces, and didn't realize the last quarterly report is due by the contract end date, rather than 15 days after the quarter end like the other quarteryly reports. Priority "on-the-ground work" has led to late submittal of status reports just a few times. Overall, I believe the projects timely, accurate and complete submittal of required deliverables has been very good to excellent, given other work priorities operating seven facilities, supervising fifteen permanent employees, managing a $2M+ annual budget, producing 2.225M fish, etc.

Back To Top

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

NPTHC began full operation in January, 2003.  Current production goals are:

1.4M fall Chinook salmon (FCS) annually

  • 500,000 FCS (acclimated) at 50 fpp into the Clearwater River from Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery (NPTH);
  • 500,000 FCS (acclimated) at 50 fpp into the Clearwater River (Lapwai Creek) from North Lapwai Valley AF;
  • 200,000 FCS (acclimated) at 50 fpp into the Selway River from Cedar Flats AF; and
  • 200,000 FCS (acclimated) at 50 fpp into the S.F. Clearwater River from Luke's Gulch AF.

825,000 spring Chinook salmon (SCS) annually

  • 150,000 SCS (acclimated) at 34 fpp into Lolo Creek (tributary of Clearwater River) from Yoosa/Camp AF;
  • 75,000 SCS (acclimated) at 29 fpp into Newsome Creek (tributary of S.F. Clearwater River) from Newsome AF;
  • 400,000 SCS (not acclimated) at 117 fpp into Meadow Creek (tributary of Selway River) from NPTH;
  • 200,000 SCS (acclimated) at 20 fpp into the Clearwater River from NPTH.*

Initially, a temporary weir on Meadow Creek was to provide broodstock for the Meadow Creek program. Because of high flows, inaccesibility, and other issues, the weir proved ineffective in adult capture, and was abandoned as a broodstock collection tool. An agreement with IDFG was reached to resolve this challenge. Beginning in 2007, Clearwater Hatchery on the Clearwater River raises 200,000 Rapid River stock SCS for NPTH. In September each year at ~150 fpp, these fish are transferred to NPTH, where they are cultured to release into the Clearwater River as smolts at 20 fpp the following April.  Adults returning to the trap at NPTH provide broodstock for the Meadow Creek program, and also act as a backup brood source for other NPTHC SCS programs.

Because this program was new in 2003, and to avoid unnecessary fish losses, a cautious approach was taken in moving toward full production. Facilities and operational systems were tested and changes were made based on real experience.  Staff were trained at other facilities and then began work at NPTH once construction was completed and facilities became operational. Broodstock was secured from other facilities, as was production initially.  Production has slowly increased based on testing the actual capabilities of the projects facilities, water sources, equipment, etc.  NPTHC has targeted and met full FCS production in 2009 and 2010. NPTHC has targeted full SCS production for the first time in 2010, and will either meet or be near that goal.

FALL CHINOOK:

All releases from NPTH and associated facilities are scheduled to be subyearlings, the historic dominant life history characteristic for “ocean type” emigration and for the “wild” or natural Snake River fall Chinook salmon.  NPTH fish are differentially coded wire tagged to measure adult returns as compared to the FCAP fall Chinook salmon and other fall Chinook within and out of the Snake River Basin (strays).  As part of our aerial redd surveys and carcass collections in the Clearwater River Subbasin, we report all fall Chinook salmon contributions, including FCAP, LFH, and out-of-Snake Basin strays in the carcass recovery section of this report.  The Snake River fall Chinook salmon is managed a single population or ESU in the Snake River Basin.

 The first year of NPTH fall Chinook releases began in 2003 with Snake River fall Chinook salmon eggs and fry being transferred from Lyons Ferry Hatchery.  A total of 505,978 fall Chinook subyearlings were released at NPTH on-station to the Clearwater River and at North Lapwai Valley (NLV) Acclimation Pond in 2003.  During 2004, releases were limited to broodstock only from volunteers to the NPTH fish ladder in 2003.  Since that time, broodstock has been from both trapping and hauling from Lower Granite Dam along with volunteers to NPTH.  The two upriver acclimation sites at Lukes Gulch on the S.F. Clearwater River and Cedar Flats on the Selway River acclimated and released a test group of about 25,000 subyearlings each beginning in 2006 and again in 2007 (Figure 1).  Broodstock shortages and facility testing precluded NPTH from reaching full production of fall Chinook until 2009 when there were 1.534 million subyearlings released, slightly over the 1.4 million goal.  During 2010, NPTH released just short of 1.4M release goal  (1.39M).  During all years, target marking goals were met with unique CWTs applied on approximately 43% and CWTs plus adipose clip applied to about 29% of all NPTH and associated releases with the rest being released unmarked.

FCS RELEASE SUMMARY:

This graph below clearly demonstrates a trend of moving toward and now meeting (in 2009 and 2010) the full phase one goal for FCS production at NPTH. 

NPTH FCS release 03 to 10

FCS broodstock coll summary 02 to 08

In 2008 and 2009, the NPTH trap was intentionally closed part of the year to target Lower Granite Dam trapped adults, ensuring natural contribution to broodstock for the program.  This is important to note because the HSRG suggested avoiding use of Clearwater River adults trapped at Lower Granite Dam for this project.  NPTH could trap exclusively at NPTH, and given increasing adult returns may be able to meet full production from NPTH trapping only in future years. However, managers are hesitant to trap only at NPTH because of the desire to incorporate natural fish (captured at Lower Granite Dam) into the broodstock.  AT this point, NPTH will continue to prioritize Lower Granite Dam trapped adults ensuring natural contribution and allowing for maximized spawning by both natural and hatchery fish in the Clearwater Subbasin.

FCS brood comp summary 02 to 07

 

 

 

FCS green egg comp target 02 to 08

2009 green egg take was 1,646,713 (1,009,581 from LGD, and 637,132 from NPTH volunteers).

FCS eye up summary 02 to 08

 2009 eye-up for all FCS eggs at NPTH was 90.8%.

FCS rearing densities 02 to 07

 

FCS Acclimation release NPTH 03 to 08

 

FCS acclimation and release NLV 03 to 08

No fish were acclimated or released at North Lapwai Valley in 2004 or 2005 due to broodstock shortages and facility mechanical problems. 

FCS Acclimation release LG 06 to 08

 

FCS Acclimation release CF 06 to 08

 

FCS target realized size at release NPTH NLV 03 to 08

 

FCS target realized size at release LG CF 03 to 08

FCS marking summary 

 

SPRING CHINOOK:

 NPTH spring Chinook releases began in 2003 with a portion of the broodstock deriving from adult returns to Lolo and Newsome creeks.  A total of 615,530 spring Chinook parr and presmolts were released at Lolo, Newsome, and Meadow creeks that year (below).  Since that time, broodstock has been contributed from Lolo and Newsome creeks, volunteers to NPTH and additional fish from the Dworshak National Fish Hathcery and Clearwater Fish Hatchery ladders.  No fish were released into Meadow Creek in 2005 because flooding that year necessitated early release from NPTH (391,920 parr). Since 2008, a direct smolt release of spring Chinook from NPTH has occurred to provide broodstock for the Meadow Creek program.

SCS RELEASE SUMMARY:

 SCS release summary 2003 to 2009

2010 SCS full production should be met for the Lolo Creek and Newsome creek programs.  Meadow Creek release was 278,580 after significant losses during early rearing from fungus, cold-water disease, Trichodina, and other pathogens.

Other Performance Measures:

Lolo adult trap summary 02 to 08

 

Lolo broodstock trapped summary 03 to 08

 

Lolo broodstock composition 03 to 07

 

Lolo green egg summary 03 to 08

 

Lolo percent eye up 03 to 08

 

Lolo acclimation and release 03 to 08

 

Lolo target release sizes 02 to 08

 

Lolo target release numbers 02 to 08

 In 2006, basin wide brood shortages meant the Lolo Creek program could not be met.

Lolo hatchery adult returns

 

Newsome adult trapping summary 02 to 08

 

Newsome broodstock trapped summary 03 to 08

 

Nesome broodstock composition 03 to 08

 

Newsome green egg summary 03 to 08

 

Newsome percent eye up 03 to 08

 

Newsome acclimation and release 03 to 08

 

Newsome target release sizes 02 to 08

 

Newsome target release numbers 02 to 08

 

Newsome adult returns 03 to 05

 

Meadow target size at release 02 to 08

 No Meadow Creek program in 2006 due to broodstock shortages.

Meadow target release numbers 02 to 08

 

Meadow secondary brood green egg summary 03 to 08

 

SCS all sources green egg comp 03 to 08

 

SCS egg eye up summary

 

SCS early and final rearing densities 03 to 07

 

SCS marking summary

 The previous information was taken from various NPTH presentations given in 2009 during the NPT's Department of Fisheries Resource Management Symposium held in Orofino Idaho.  For additional performance indicators, please see NPTH M&E project #1983-350-03.  That projects primary purpose is monitoring and evaluation of this project, and has a host of performance measures and results from NPTH operations.

 Regarding meeting deliverables listed above, all AOP's and Annual Progress Reports have been submitted in Pisces on time. Most monthly and quarterly progress reports have also been submitted and uploaded on time. NPTHC has been very effective in meeting reporting and other requirements by BPA and others.

Facility maintenance has been excellent, despite a highly complex primary facility (NPTH) with inherent mechanical and water delivery issues from day one.  Staff have learned how to operate and maintain NPTH efficiently within its limitations, and have made changes allowing for full production targets beginning in 2009-10.  Remote site challenges have been overcome, and all facilities are now expected to handle the full production they were built for.

Data collection, storage and dissemination has slowly developed from awkward and inconsistent to robust and timely. As mentioned in other sections of this proposal, the NPT's Department of Fisheries Resource Management has invested in technology, time and effort to dramatically improve data access for all interested parties.  This includes NPTH, where the manager is currently researching possible database systems for use within NPTHC. This database would interface with others utilized within and outside the NPT, and would allow staff efficient and accurate input of raw data. It would also generate summaries, trends, reports, and other analysis snapshots that would help improve efficiency and drive sound decision making.


Back To Top

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-NPCC-20230309
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to consider condition #1 (goals) and #2 (objectives/timeline), and address in project documentation if appropriate. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery and reconditioned steelhead kelt programs. See Policy Issue I.b., II.a. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-ISRP-20230324
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: None
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-NPCC-20110125
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1983-350-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through 2016: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—Subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1983-350-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003.

Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium.

The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish.

One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists.

Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention.

Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal.

Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation.

SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Adequately described.


4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Adequately described.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003. Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium. The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish. One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists. Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention. Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal. Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation. SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately described. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately described.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Flat line '07 requested amount - this level was reflected in the Step 3 NPTH decision (May 17, 2000). Other associated life histories (coho) not prioritized.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
While the ISRP recommends the project as fundable, the ISRP also expects the sponsors to do a better job of reporting results in their future proposals. The Project History reports only actions performed, e.g., the planning and creation of the hatchery, and numbers of fish of different sorts stocked each year since releases began in 2003. Adult return rates cannot yet be reported, of course, but it would be helpful to have information for each released group on egg-to-smolt survival and on smolt survival to points downstream. Reasons for variation in such results should be discussed, including comparison with literature values.

In their response, the sponsors provided additional data and explanations, and these seem adequate; however, in future review cycles, sponsors could do a better job of following the topical outline for proposals.
Documentation Links:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
During the 07-09 solicitation, the ISRP acknowledged the project described its activities well. However, they felt results were not well-reported. In 2009, the NPTH held a 5-year symposium covering all of its fisheries activities. NPTH gave results-driven presentations on both spring and fall Chinook during that symposium. Key slides from those presentations are included in the major accomplishments section of this proposal, so reviewers can see a variety of hatchery-specific performance criteria relative to NPTH during the first five years of operation.

Back To Top

Adaptive Management


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
When looking at the performance of NPTH, it is critical to remember this program is new in every way. In 2003 when the program started, the buildings, water delivery systems, equipment, staff, etc. were all new. All sites were tested and many deficiencies were recognized almost immediately. Most importantly, calculated well water at NPTH was dramatically less than programmed for. Currently less than half the well water the program was build on is available from ground water wells at NPTH, and a significant portion of that water is 68 degrees, so only useable when mixed with cold river water during winter months. The original river water filter system did not work properly and was replaced. The new filter system can only filter effectively to 50 microns. This means the UV system that requires incoming water be filtered to a minimum of 12 microns is not effective in killing pathogens. Not only does filtration problems diminish the effectiveness of the UV system, it also causes problems for the heat exchanger, as particulates passing the filter system are caught in the heat exchanger plates, reducing the amount of water that can be cooled by the chiller. This means fish are being reared on pathogen loaded, warmer water than planned for when the facility was built. Currently oxygen supplementation, water re-use, and program timing changes are in place so full production can be targeted. The remote sites have had problems as well. Camp creek at Yoosa/Camp Creek AF is undermining the concrete intake structure itself, and will need a major investment to correct. The North Lapwai Valley AF (NLV) intake gets clogged by sediment and cobble during high flows in the spring, when it is in use. Hatchery staff have made significant improvements to the intake but this remains a challenge to correct long-term. Additionally, Lapwai Creek (which provides rearing water for NLV) temperatures become too high once spring flows drop, causing a significant drop in dissolved oxygen levels. Fish can only be acclimated until mid-May, instead of mid-June as programmed. The intake screens at Lukes Gulch AF (LG) and Cedar Flats AF (CF)have been problematic during turbid or high flow events. Sweetwater Springs (SWS) had extremely low flows this spring. All remote sites are now setup for oxygen supplementation, and SWS used this emergency tool this year during FCS rearing. Adult brood SCS trapped at Lolo Creek and Newsome Creek were supposed to be held at the acclimation sites on those streams. Unfortunately, late summer stream temps were so warm during the first few years of operation that fish had to be moved to NPTH each year to avoid high losses during holding. In 2007, it was determined that all trapped fish on Lolo Creek and Newsome Creek would be transported to NPTH immediately for holding in cooler Clearwater River water, to minimize the potential for disease outbreaks and high water temperature associated losses. A flood event at NPTH warranted emergency release of a significant portion of that year's production in 2005. Most of the staff were relatively or brand new to fish culture when the facilities began operating in 2003. Some received training at other basin hatcheries prior to start-up, but all employees have had to learn fish culture, fish health, plant operation and maintenance, truck driving, etc. NPTH is an extremely complex hatchery driven by a variety of automated water delivery and electrical systems. Maintenance and standby employees have had to learn operation and maintenance of intake systems, filter systems, a UV system, a chiller and heat exchanger, variable frequency drive booster pumps and ground wells, PLC driven communication sytems, etc. "Trial by fire" coupled with training by outside vendors have dramatically reduced the number of alarms and other problems experienced within the Complex. This in turn has led to a marked improvement in fish health and production. These challenges are mentioned so reviewers can appreciate the difficulties associated with a new project, particularly one as complex as NPTH. As improvements continue to be made at all sites, employee experience grows, and adult returns increase from project releases, performance trends should continue to improve. In 2009 and 2010, full FCS production was achieved. Full SCS production was not targeted until 2010, and releases are expected to be met for both the Lolo Creek and Newsome Creek programs this year, with approximately 70% of the Meadow Creek program reached. Regarding NATURES rearing techniques, NPTH is now actively exercising SCS in the S-channels on a daily basis, after learning how to operate the exercise sytem pumps in a way that does not degrade water quality during exercise. Planted trees have finally grown to the point of providing shade cover. Although not matching stream temperatures completely as planned (due to a variety of issues), culturists are now incubating SCS in very cold water for an extended period, similar to incubation in the projects target streams. All fish are acclimated on water from the stream or river they are outplanted into. Low density targets have been met for the most part, although water shortages during heavy program months have warranted slightly exceeding density and/or flow index limits, and second pass water use has become necessary to meet full production. Volitional releases for NPTH FCS and SCS releases, and Newsome Creek and Yoosa/Camp Creek SCS releases have been acheived most years. These are positive actions that should be consistently applied from this point forward, allowing (coupled with more consistent sizes and numbers released) for better evaluation of NATURES rearing and overall project performance in the future. A database for use specifically by NPTHC is being researched to improve data entry, storage, summary and dissemination. This should be in place in 2011, and will dramatically improve how data is stored, analyzed and reported to managers.

Back To Top

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
36809-1 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Progress (Annual) Report 10/1990 - 09/1991 3/1/1992 12:00:00 AM
36809-2 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Progress (Annual) Report 10/1995 - 09/1996 8/1/1996 12:00:00 AM
00004504-2 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 01/1998 - 12/1998 4504 1/27/2000 12:00:00 AM
00004504-1 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 01/1999 - 12/1999 4504 8/17/2001 12:00:00 AM
00004504-3 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 10/1999 - 09/2000 4504 12/31/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004504-7 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Progress (Annual) Report 01/2004 - 12/2004 4504 2/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004504-5 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 10/2001 - 09/2002 4504 12/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004504-6 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Progress (Annual) Report 01/2003 - 12/2004 4504 12/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00020668-1 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Progress (Annual) Report 01/2005 - 12/2005 20668 2/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00020668-2 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Progress (Annual) Report 01/2005 - 12/2005 20668 2/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00004504-4 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 10/2000 - 09/2001 4504 3/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00004035-1 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project Progress (Annual) Report 10/2002 - 09/2004 4035 6/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
P102763 NPTH 2006 Annual Report Final Progress (Annual) Report 01/2006 - 12/2006 30513 7/11/2007 10:52:45 AM
P103727 NPTH 2007 Annual Operations Plan Management Plan - 30513 9/26/2007 9:00:29 AM
P105453 2007 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2007 - 12/2007 36059 2/1/2008 2:13:58 PM
P107762 2004 Clearwater Coho Master Plan Management Plan - 8/13/2008 3:45:43 PM
P109352 Water Permit from Idaho Other - 12/8/2008 1:50:03 PM
P112435 2008 NPTHC Annual Operation Report 5 May 09.doc Progress (Annual) Report 01/2008 - 12/2008 40151 7/13/2009 1:15:53 PM
P113226 Lamprey being innoculated Photo - 45237 8/27/2009 10:40:10 AM
P113784 FY2009 NPTHC Annual Operation Plan Management Plan - 40151 10/15/2009 8:33:55 AM
P116359 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Progress (Annual) Report 01/2009 - 12/2009 45237 5/14/2010 2:14:07 PM
P116505 NPTH Two Residence BOG May 26 2010 Other - 5/26/2010 3:31:17 PM
P116545 Oct 2002 letter from NPT to BPA RE: future housing needs at NPTH Other - 6/1/2010 1:22:13 PM
P116550 2000 letter from Council to BPA re: NPTH Other - 6/1/2010 2:34:08 PM
P116551 September 2000 letter from BPA to Council re: NPTH Other - 6/1/2010 2:34:57 PM
P120489 1-28-2011 letter from Steve Wright to Chairman McCoy Oatman re. Housing Other - 3/16/2011 3:28:23 PM
P120791 NPTHC 2009 Annual (Progress) Report FINAL Progress (Annual) Report 01/2009 - 12/2009 50764 4/11/2011 2:07:08 PM
P121795 2010 NPTHC Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2010 - 12/2010 50764 6/28/2011 11:40:55 AM
P123237 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex, 1/08 - 12/08 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2008 - 12/2008 40151 10/10/2011 10:48:52 AM
P131033 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/10 - 12/10 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2010 - 12/2010 55489 3/4/2013 3:05:16 PM
P132646 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/11 - 12/11 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2011 - 12/2011 60242 7/9/2013 9:57:03 AM
P147463 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/12/- 12/12 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2012 - 12/2012 67318 2/18/2016 9:40:41 AM
P160598 Nez Perce Tribal Hatcher Complex; 1/13 - 12/13 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2013 - 12/2013 74017 REL 17 5/25/2018 2:31:18 PM
P160770 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/14 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 74017 REL 17 6/11/2018 11:19:40 AM
P160771 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 74017 REL 17 6/11/2018 11:20:51 AM
P162056 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 74017 REL 17 9/19/2018 11:48:16 AM
P169583 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex; 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 74017 REL 35 12/16/2019 2:40:41 PM
P175075 2010 NPTHC Annual Report Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P180361 FINAL NPTH 2019 Annual Report 1/19-12/19 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 74017 REL 60 12/4/2020 11:40:29 AM

Other Project Documents on the Web


Back To Top

Back To Top

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: This project Merged To 2025-003-00 effective on 10/1/2024
Relationship Description: Work and budgets from projects: 1983-350-00 NPT Hatchery O&M, 1996-043-00 Johnson Creek Artificial Prop. O&M, and 1998-007-02 Grand Ronde Supplementation O&M are merging to become project 2025-003-00.


Additional Relationships Explanation:

Snake River FCS are listed as an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) and considered to be part of a single genetically similar aggregate and are managed as a single population.  The NPTH program is integrated with production at Lyons Ferry Hatchery (WDFW), the Fall Chinook Acclimation Program (project 1998-010-05), and the Idaho Power Company (IPC) mitigation program.  Currently broodstock are obtained from two primary sources: volunteers to the ladder at NPTH and adults collected at Lower Granite Dam (LGR).  Broodstock collection protocols at LGR are determined annually by the comanagers.  Typically, 30% of the trapped adults are transported to NPTH and 70% to LFH, targeting even distribution of females for spawning.   Fish hauling schedules to meet this ratio (along with sex and origin ratios) are coordinated between WDFW and NPT to ensure mutual success, and adjustments are made by both programs as needed.  Coordination of all activities by these parties related to Snake River fall Chinook is agreed to each year through the Lyons Ferry Annual Operation Plan.  A weekly webinar is conducted by the co-managers during FCS adult returns to manage fisheries, maximize the resource, and communicate status/trends.

Baseline FCS data collection for adult spawner abundance, spawn timing, and habitat evaluations has been occurring in the Clearwater River and major tributaries including the South Fork Clearwater River, Main Fork Clearwater River and lower Selway River since 1988.  M&E of fish produced in NPTHC facilities began in 2003.  Standardized performance measures quantified and utilized in program performance evaluations are described in Appendix A, Table A.2 of the 2010 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Annual Operation Plan.  Some small scale production experiments may also occur as part of the M&E program.  

SCS in the Clearwater River Subbasin were essentially extirpated by Lewiston Dam (Schoen et al. 1999; USFWS 1999; Murphy and Metsker 1962).  However, naturalized populations have been re-established in Lolo Creek and mainstem/tributary reaches of the Lochsa, Selway and South Fork (S.F.) Clearwater rivers (Larson and Mobrand 1992).  Founding hatchery stocks used to re-colonize SCS were primarily obtained from the Rapid River Hatchery.  Genetic analysis has confirmed that existing natural SCS in the Clearwater River Subbasin are derived from reintroduced Snake River stocks.  Some small scale production experiments may also occur as part of the M&E program.  

NPTHC works with Dworshak National Fish Hatchery (USFWS), Kooskia Tribal Hatchery (NPT), and Clearwater Anadromous Hatchery (IDFG) in a coordinated approach to SCS supplementation in the Clearwater Basin.  All actions and plans are developed and agreed to by these parties in the Clearwater Annual Operation Plan.  Fish transport and outplant, broodstock capture, surplus distribution, spawning and other work is done cooperatively.  These programs frequently assist each other through equipment or staff sharing to meet common work objectives.  A weekly webinar is conducted by the co-managers during SCS adult returns to manage fisheries, maximize the resource, and communicate status/trends.

Baseline SCS data collection for adult spawner abundance and spawn timing has been occurring in Lolo and Newsome creeks since 1987 and in Meadow Creek since 1993.  Juvenile production and survival data collection has been occurring in Lolo and Meadow creeks since 1993 and in Newsome Creek since 1995.  Various habitat evaluations have occurred in the three creeks since 1991.  Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of SCS produced in NPTHC facilities began in 2003. Standardized performance measures quantified and utilized in program performance evaluations are described in Appendix A, Table A.2 of the 2010 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Complex Annual Operation Plan. Some small scale production experiments may also occur as part of the M&E program.  

All monitoring and evaluation for this project (both FCS and SCS) is conducted by BPA project 1983-350-03.  Data is collected and shared between the two projects to meet reporting requirements, and to facilitate decision-making by resource managers.  A detailed monitoring and evaluation plan for the NPTHC has been developed and is available on request (Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for The NPTH: Action Plan, Hesse and Cramer 2000).  All aspects of ongoing or proposed M&E are discussed in detail in that document and subsequent M&E annual reports.

Results for all project M&E studies can be found on the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) report website at https://efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/reportcenter.aspx.

All NPTHC fish health monitoring is conducted through the USFWS Idaho Fish Health Center, which provides this service for both DNFH and Kooskia Hatchery as well.  A multi-year contract covers this work, and specifics are addressed during the Clearwater Annual Operation Plan process.

An additional collaborative effort is being conducted between the NPT's Lamprey Restoration Initiative and NPTHC.  Although BPA does not fund any portion of this initiative, beginning in 2006 they agreed to let lampreys be held at NPTH after collection at Columbia River dams in the fall/winter and prior to outplanting the following spring.  They agreed to this as long as no work was conducted by NPTHC employees or dollars spent from the project on this activity, and as long as fish health risks were absolutely minimized since lampreys are known carriers of frunculosis.  NPTHC has submitted a lamprey risk assesment to BPA via Pisces analyzing the risk, and NPT Department of Fisheries Resource Management employees that work on the initiative submit a lamprey activities document each year to BPA, also through Pisces.

Related project list:
BPA 198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E This project provides a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of NPTH Phase I production of fall and spring Chinook salmon.
BPA 199901700 Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek This project involves channel revegetation, riparian fencing and culvert assessment/replacement. Improvement in water quality will benefit the operation of the North Lapwai Valley Acclimation Facility
Other: LSRCP 200101 Idaho Fish Health Center This project provides subcontract fish health monitoring services for fall and spring Chinook salmon within NPTHC.
Other: LSRCP 200112 Lyons Ferry Hatchery/WDFW. NPTH production is closely coordinate with Snake River fall Chinook at Lyons Ferry. Both facilities share broodstock collected at Lower Granite Dam. An annual operation plan provides coordination specifics between projects.
BPA 200203200 Fall Chin Passage Lower Granite Dam. This project provides fall Chinook broodstock (goal: 30% of fish trapped are transported to NPTH for broodstock)
Other: LSRCP USFWS Dworshak Hatchery This project provides NPTH with spring Chinook broodstock that is surplus to LSRCP production needs. An annual operation plan provides coordination specifics between projects.
Other: LSRCP USFWS Clearwater Hatchery/IDFG. This project provides NPTH with spring Chinook broodstock that is surplus to LSRCP production needs. An annual operation plan provides coordination specifics between projects.
LSRCP # 200112 - Lyons Ferry Hatchery ------ Production of yearling and sub-yearling fall Chinook salmon for on-station releases and outplants above Lower Granite Dam.
LSRCP #200118 - LSRCP Fall Chinook Production & Evaluation Prog. ----- Evaluate yearling and sub-yearling fall Chinook salmon released on-station from LFH. Run reconstruction of adult fall Chinook returns to Lower Granite Dam.
Idaho Power Corporation - ICP Fall Chinook Program ----- Spawning ground surveys in the Snake River. Production of fall Chinook salmon for release below Hells Canyon Dam. Habitat quality in Snake River above and below Hells Canyon Dam Complex.
200301700 - Integrated Status Effectiveness Monitoring Project.  Provide (i) subbasin-scale pilot status and trend monitoring efforts for anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the South Fork Salmon River basin, and (ii) effectiveness monitoring for suites of habitat restoration projects in selected watersheds within the three target subbasins.  
BPA 198909802 – Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers.  Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and rebuilding spring/summer Chinook populations in Idaho.
BPA 199403300 - Fish Passage Center’s Smolt Monitoring Project.  Juvenile and natural salmon produced in relation to these facilities will provide release and migration data for in-river information on migration timing and survival.
BPA 199600800 - PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses).  Naturally produced juveniles from targeted streams will provide data for life cycle model
BPA 199703800 - Listed Stock Chinook Salmon Gamete Preservation (Cryopreservation).


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Fall ESU (Threatened)
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)

Secondary Focal Species
Lamprey, River (L. ayresi)
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Snake River DPS (Threatened)
Trout, Bull (S. confluentus) (Threatened)
Trout, Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Whitefish, Mountain (Prosopium williamsoni)
Wildlife

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
The focal species listed are adapted to an environment with deep snow packs and extended spring run-off. Climate change is expected to change this climate to less snow and more rain on snow events. This will lead to flasher type run-off characteristic of coastal cascade climate. The reduced flow period may make the emigration from Idaho mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean more difficult.  If necessary, fish releases may be adjusted annually as necessary  to ensure out-migrating fish have the best opportunity for successful migration to the Pacific Ocean. These adjustments would be made based on current and predicted flows and weather conditions, and other factors.

Predatory birds like the Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) and American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) are increasing in numbers in the Snake River basin.  Cormorants are now common on the Clearwater River in the project area. Currently and in the future, fish releases are usually targeted during high and turbid flows as much as possible, to help fish migrate more easily and to provide cover from predation.

Back To Top

Types of Work

Work Classes

Anadromous Fish Hatchery

Program Name:  
NPTH Fall Chinook
Type:  
Integrated
HSRG Recommendations Summary
The HSRG looked at various hatchery scenarios that could improve productivity while meeting the standards for a Primary or Contributing population, but could not significantly increase natural-origin spawning under current habitat conditions. To promote spatial structure, local adaptation and to improve productivity, the HSRG recommended that managers pursue development of broodstock collection capabilities for releases into the Clearwater River. Due to the lack of adult capture facilities, the HSRG recommends that managers develop, test and deploy live capture selective fishing gears to collect local Clearwater brood to accomplish this end, provide additional harvest opportunity, and manage pHOS. Managers should avoid removing Clearwater-origin fish at Lower Granite Dam.

The HSRG also recommended that managers implement a BKD control strategy for their spring and summer/fall Chinook hatchery programs where BKD has been a problem. Because brood fish with high levels of the BKD are more likely to transmit the agent to their progeny, they should be culled when possible(e.g., ELISA OD value of 0.4 and above when broodstock are not in short supply and ELISA OD value of 0.6 and above when broodstock are in short supply). For programs using ESA-listed natural-origin brood fish, the culling of their eggs/progeny may, at the managers’ discretion, be dispensed with. However, the ESA-listed broodstock should be injected, pre-spawning, with an appropriate antibiotic, and the resulting eggs should be surface-disinfected with iodophor. All pre-spawning brood injections may be limited to females, ESA-listed or otherwise. Finally, eggs and hatchlings derived from broodstock found to be heavily infected with BKD should be incubated/reared in isolation, and at low densities. at the first signs of infection with the BKD agent, they should be treated with orally administered erythromycin (100 mg/kg fish) for 28 days. The treatment should be repeated if necessary.
HSRG Implementation Explanation
HSRG recommendations are addressed in the NPTH Fall Chinook HGMP. Since FCS production began in 2003, adults trapped at NPTH for broodstock have been as low as 13% and as high as 100% of total adults trapped (including those trapped at Lower Granite Dam). Large numbers of adults returning to the Clearwater River are trapped at NPTH for broodstock. In addition, consistent with the U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement, adults are trapped at Lower Granite Dam to provide broodstock for both Lyons Ferry and NPTH and to ensure incorporation of natural fish into the broodstock as well as to recover coded-wire tagged fish for run reconstruction purposes.

NPTH M&E project 1983-350-03 plans to install a weir on the SF Clearwater River for capture of summer/fall Chinook adults. This would provide a local trapping source for the Lukes Gulch release under NPTH.

Regarding BKD management, NPTH already has a strict BKD management plan in place. Trapped females are innoculated for BKD, those used during spawning are tested for BKD, and eggs from high-ELISA females may be culled, or reared separately. Juvenile FCS less than 200 fpp are reared at .3 DI, and larger fish are reared at .1 DI. Fortunately, BKD has not proven to be a significant problem at NPTH to date.
Fish Species:  
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Fall ESU (Threatened)
  pNOB pHOS PNI
Target <div class="userEnteredValue">0.30</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.70</div> 0.30
Realized <div class="userEnteredValue">0.14</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.77</div> 0.15
<hr/>
Program Name:  
NPTH Smolt SCS into Clearwater River
Type:  
Integrated
HSRG Recommendations Summary
HSRG stated the managers should coordinate the programming of all salmon populations reared in the Clearwater Fish Hatchery, Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to maximize the benefits of available water supply, appropriate water temperature, and rearing containers. Operating these four major hatcheries as a coordinated system would facilitate the movement of programs/populations between and among the different hatcheries. This would maximize survival by producing fish in good condition for release at the appropriate life stage.

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery programming should be designed to fit the limitations of the water supply and be integrated with other facilities in the basin to achieve manager’s goals.

The HSRG also recommends that managers continue to implement their apparently successful BKD risk management strategies, which include culling.
HSRG Implementation Explanation
Yes. The four Clearwater River hatcheries are already co-managing and working together on various work activities. NPTH transports fish for both Clearwater Hatchery and Dworshak. Kooskia is now operated by the NPT, and DNFH is co-managed by the NPT, with both USFWS and Tribal employees. All three facilites can or have provided SCS adults for broodstock at NPTH in the past. All facilities meet annually to develop the Clearwater River Annual Operation Plan. Key personnel changes amongst these co-managers have led to more teamwork in the last few years. There are already informal discussions between the managers about possible program changes that would maximize water, space, temperature, etc. to benefit the Basin's SCS programs.

Regarding matching programming to limited water, this is a valid suggestion. Because a temporary weir on Meadow Creek proved inefficient and was abandoned for adult collection, the NPT reached an agreement with IDFG to solve the problem. They provide 200K smolts at 150 fpp to NPTH in September each year. NPTH releases them into the Clearwater River the following April at 20 fpp, and returning adults from this program provide broodstock for the Meadow Creek program and as a backup brood source for the other NPTH SCS programs. This program was not part of the original plan for NPTH, but is a necessary solution to keep Meadow Creek program running until a permanent weir can be installed. Also, the hatchery is running at full production on roughly half the well water planned for, and with a variety of river water treatment, filter and temperature issues. Hatchery staff are researching valid fixes for these problems, but have to currently operate with less water than ideal to meet program goals.

Regarding BKD management, NPTH already utilizes a strong BKD management philosophy, and that will not change.
Fish Species:  
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)
  pNOB pHOS PNI
Target <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> 0.50
Realized <div class="userEnteredValue">0.10</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.32</div> 0.24
<hr/>
Program Name:  
Yoosa/Camp Creek SCS Pre-smolts into Lolo Creek
Type:  
Integrated
HSRG Recommendations Summary
The HSRG recommends converting the current pre-smolt program to a smolt program of approximately 100,000 fish with a pNOB of 100% and a PNI of 0.67. All hatchery adults would be allowed to spawn naturally. This is expected to result in an average pHOS of 50%. This approach will increase the total spawners as well as natural-origin spawners via reproduction by hatchery-origin recruits in Lolo Creek. In the long term, this approach will provide additional fish for harvest.

The managers should coordinate the programming of all salmon populations reared in the Clearwater Fish Hatchery, Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to maximize the benefits of available water supply, appropriate water temperature, and rearing containers. Operating these four major hatcheries as a coordinated system would facilitate the movement of programs/populations between and among the different hatcheries. This would maximize survival by producing fish in good condition for release at the appropriate life stage.

The HSRG also recommends that managers continue to implement their apparently successful BKD risk management strategies, which include culling.
HSRG Implementation Explanation
Yes. Current release size for this program is 34 fpp, mimicing natural size during outmigration. NPTH M&E study design was to evaluate NATURES rearing approach which included abandoning a traditional hatchery smolt release size for a natural release size. Our intent is stick with the original study design for the program, particularly because the program is so new, and adult return information is just now becoming available. If after multiple life-cycles the current pre-smolt program proves unsucessful, a change in release size may be warranted.

The four Clearwater River hatcheries are already co-managing and working together on various work activities. NPTH transports fish for both Clearwater Hatchery and Dworshak. Kooskia is now operated by the NPT, and DNFH is co-managed by the NPT, with both USFWS and Tribal employees. All three facilites can or have provided SCS adults for broodstock at NPTH in the past. All facilities meet annually to develop the Clearwater River Annual Operation Plan. Key personnel changes amongst these co-managers have led to more teamwork in the last few years. There are already informal discussions between the managers about possible program changes that would maximize water, space, temperature, etc. to benefit the Basin's SCS programs.

NPTH already incorporates a strict BKD management protocol, and will continue to do so.
Fish Species:  
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)
  pNOB pHOS PNI
Target <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> 0.50
Realized <div class="userEnteredValue">0.10</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.32</div> 0.24
<hr/>
Program Name:  
Newsome Creek Pre-smolts into Newsome Creek
Type:  
Integrated
HSRG Recommendations Summary
HSRG stated the managers should coordinate the programming of all salmon populations reared in the Clearwater Fish Hatchery, Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to maximize the benefits of available water supply, appropriate water temperature, and rearing containers. Operating these four major hatcheries as a coordinated system would facilitate the movement of programs/populations between and among the different hatcheries. This would maximize survival by producing fish in good condition for release at the appropriate life stage.

For the Newsome Creek program, the HSRG recommends converting the current pre-smolt program to a smolt program of the same size (approximately 75,000 smolts, pNOB=100%, PNI=0.6) and allowing all other returning adults to spawn (excluding strays from the segregated programs). This would allow the program to operate consistent with the standards of a Contributing population and reduce the ecological impacts of parr releases on naturally rearing spring Chinook. This approach is expected to increase the total spawners as well as natural-origin spawners via reproduction by hatchery-origin recruits in Newsome Creek.
HSRG Implementation Explanation
Yes. Current release size for this program is 29 fpp, mimicing natural size during outmigration. NPTH M&E study design was to analyze a NATURES rearing approach which included abandoning a traditional hatchery smolt release size for a natural release size. Our intent is to continue with the original study design, particularly because the program is so new, and adult return information is just now becoming available. If after multiple life-cycles the current pre-smolt program proves unsucessful, a change in release size may be warranted.
Fish Species:  
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)
  pNOB pHOS PNI
Target <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> 0.50
Realized <div class="userEnteredValue">0.10</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.32</div> 0.24
<hr/>
Program Name:  
Meadow Creek SCS Parr into Meadow Creek
Type:  
Integrated
HSRG Recommendations Summary
Goals for this program need to be clarified. As stated, managers have identified conservation as well as harvest goals. Operation of the current hatchery program in the lower river is inconsistent with achieving the conservation goal unless returns from the hatchery program can be managed on spawning grounds. If managers place emphasis in the harvest objective, continuing current operations would be consistent with the HSRG-defined standards of a Stabilizing population.

The managers should coordinate the programming of all salmon populations reared in the Clearwater Fish Hatchery, Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to maximize the benefits of available water supply, appropriate water temperature, and rearing containers. Operating these four major hatcheries as a coordinated system would facilitate the movement of programs/populations between and among the different hatcheries. This would maximize survival by producing fish in good condition for release at the appropriate life stage.

The HSRG recommends that managers continue to implement their apparently successful BKD strategies, which include culling.
HSRG Implementation Explanation
Yes. Because a temporary weir proved ineffective during high water flows, it was abandoned as a management tool on Meadow Creek. Because a permanent weir was extremely expensive given the geography and limited access of the area, it was not funded as part of the NPTH program. The project sponsor would prefer to trap hatchery adults on or near Meadow Creek, and manage the hatchery program on the spawning grounds. Until a permanent weir is funded and constructed, that is not possible.

However, in an effort to better assess hatchery impacts to natural spawners in the lower Selway, NPTH M&E (BPA project #1983-350-03) will be adding a new work element beginning in 2012. Redd counts and carcass surveys will be conducted annually to analyze natural and hatchery adult contribution in the lower Selway River. This should help in decision making regading the Meadow Creek program's future.

The four Clearwater River hatcheries are already co-managing and working together on various work activities. NPTH transports fish for both Clearwater Hatchery and Dworshak. Kooskia is now operated by the NPT, and DNFH is co-managed by the NPT, with both USFWS and Tribal employees. All three facilites can or have provided SCS adults for broodstock at NPTH in the past. All facilities meet annually to develop the Clearwater River Annual Operation Plan. Key personnel changes amongst these co-managers have led to more teamwork in the last few years. There are already informal discussions between the managers about possible program changes that would maximize water, space, temperature, etc. to benefit the Basin's SCS programs.

NPTH already incorporates a strict BKD management protocol, and will continue to do so.
Fish Species:  
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer (not listed)
  pNOB pHOS PNI
Target <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.75</div> 0.50
Realized <div class="userEnteredValue">0.10</div> <div class="userEnteredValue">0.32</div> 0.24
Links to Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) documents
<No answer provided>

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?
<No answer provided>
Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.
<No answer provided>
Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?
<No answer provided>
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
<No answer provided>
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
<No answer provided>

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Project Implementation Monitoring
Project Compliance Monitoring
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Back To Top

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Gedney Creek-Selway River (1706030204) HUC 5 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2
Upper South Fork Clearwater River (1706030505) HUC 5 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 3
Middle South Fork Clearwater River (1706030507) HUC 5 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 3
Cottonwood Creek (1706030607) HUC 5 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Clearwater River (1706030613) HUC 5 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Glade Creek-Lochsa River (170603030708) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 3
Big Smith Creek-Middle Fork Clearwater River (170603040201) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Maggie Creek (170603040202) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Suttler Creek-Middle Fork Clearwater River (170603040203) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Newsome Creek (170603050402) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Threemile Creek (170603050902) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Suzie Creek-Lawyer Creek (170603060107) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Upper Lolo Creek (170603060201) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Musselshell Creek (170603060202) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2
Middle Lolo Creek (170603060204) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Lolo Creek (170603060205) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Upper Jim Ford Creek (170603060301) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Tom Taha Creek-Clearwater River (170603060501) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2
Fivemile Creek-Clearwater River (170603060503) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2
Big Creek-Clearwater River (170603060504) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Howard Gulch-Potlatch River (170603061103) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Sweetwater Creek (170603061205) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Lapwai Creek (170603061206) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Wheeler Canyon-Clearwater River (170603061302) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Rattlesnake Canyon-Clearwater River (170603061305) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Hatwai Creek (170603061306) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lindsay Creek (170603061307) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Catholic Creek-Clearwater River (170603061308) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Freeman Creek-North Fork Clearwater River (170603080804) HUC 6 None
Headwaters Meadow Creek (170603020301) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Middle Meadow Creek (170603020304) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Lower Meadow Creek (170603020307) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Gedney Creek (170603020401) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Redbird Creek-Snake River (170601030305) HUC 6 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 1
Tammany Creek (170601030306) HUC 6 None
The Dalles Dam to John Day Dam Mainstem None
John Day Dam Mainstem None
The Dalles Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of Snake and Columbia River to Priest Rapids Dam Mainstem None
Ice Harbor Dam to Lower Monumental Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of Snake and Columbia River to Ice Harbor Dam Mainstem None
McNary Dam to Confluence of Snake and Columbia River Mainstem None
John Day Dam to McNary Dam Mainstem None
Priest Rapids Dam to Wanapum Dam Mainstem None
McNary Dam Mainstem None
Ice Harbor Dam Mainstem None
Priest Rapids Dam Mainstem None
Lower Monumental Dam Mainstem None
Little Goose Dam Mainstem None
Little Goose Dam to Lower Granite Dam Mainstem None
Lower Monumental Dam to Little Goose Dam Mainstem None
Lower Granite Dam Mainstem None
Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam Mainstem None
Wanapum Dam Mainstem None
Dworshak Dam Mainstem None
Chief Joseph Dam to Grand Coulee Dam Mainstem None
Wells Dam to Chief Joseph Dam Mainstem None
Chief Joseph Dam Mainstem None
Grand Coulee Dam to Keenleyside Dam Mainstem None
Wells Dam Mainstem None
Rocky Reach Dam to Wells Dam Mainstem None
Rocky Reach Dam Mainstem None
Rock Island Dam to Rocky Reach Dam Mainstem None
Wanapum Dam to Rock Island Dam Mainstem None
Rock Island Dam Mainstem None
Grand Coulee Dam Mainstem None
Bonneville Dam to The Dalles Dam Mainstem None
Bonneville Dam - Powerhouse 1 Mainstem None
Bonneville Dam - Spillway Mainstem None
Bonneville Dam - Powerhouse 2 Mainstem None
Dworshak Reservoir Mainstem None
Hells Canyon Dam Mainstem None
Hungry Horse Dam beginning of Hungry Horse Reservoir Mainstem None
Kerr Dam Mainstem None
Kerr Dam to Hungry Horse Dam Mainstem None
Hungry Horse Dam Mainstem None
Libby Dam to end of Mainstem Kootenay River Mainstem None
Corra Linn Dam to Libby Dam Mainstem None
Libby Dam Mainstem None
Albeni Falls Dam into Lake Pend Oreille Mainstem None
Box Canyon Dam to Albeni Falls Dam Mainstem None
Albeni Falls Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of Snake and Clearwater River to Dworshak Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of MF and CF Willamette River to Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek Mainstem None
Detroit Reservoir Mainstem None
Detroit Dam Mainstem None
Big Cliff Dam to Detroit Dam Mainstem None
Green Peter Reservoir Mainstem None
Foster Dam to Green Peter Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of North and South Santiam River to Foster Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of North and South Santiam River to Big Cliff Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of Willamette and Santiam River to Confluence of North and South Santiam River Mainstem None
Big Cliff Dam Mainstem None
Foster Dam Mainstem None
Green Peter Dam Mainstem None
Fern Ridge Reservoir Mainstem None
Confluence of Willamette and Long Tom River to Fern Ridge Dam Mainstem None
Fern Ridge Dam Mainstem None
Dexter Dam to Lookout Point Dam Mainstem None
Lookout Point Dam to Hills Creek Dam Mainstem None
Fall Creek Reservoir Mainstem None
Blue River Lake Mainstem None
Cougar Reservoir Mainstem None
Leaburg Dam to Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River Mainstem None
Confluence of Willamette and McKenzie River to Leaburg Dam Mainstem None
Leaburg Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River to Blue River Dam Mainstem None
Blue River Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of McKenzie and South Fork McKenzie River to Cougar Dam Mainstem None
Cougar Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River to Confluence of McKenzie and South Fork McKenzie River Mainstem None
Confluence of Willamette and Columbia River to Confluence of MF Willamette and CF Willamette River Mainstem None
Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek to Fall Creek Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek to Dexter Dam Mainstem None
Fall Creek Dam Mainstem None
Lookout Point Dam Mainstem None
Dexter Dam Mainstem None
Hills Creek Reservoir Mainstem None
Hills Creek Dam Mainstem None
Cottage Grove Lake Mainstem None
Dorena Lake Mainstem None
Confluence of MF and CF Willamette River to Confluence of CF Willamette and Row River Mainstem None
Dorena Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of CF Willamette River and Row River to Cottage Grove Dam Mainstem None
Cottage Grove Dam Mainstem None
Confluence of CF Willamette River and Row River to Dorena Dam Mainstem None

Back To Top

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Salmon Production - Fall Chinook (DELV-1)
Beginning in January, provide incubation and early rearing at NPTH for 1.4 million FCS (500,000 for direct release into the Clearwater River from NPTH, 200,000 for acclimated release from Lukes Gulch AF, 200,000 for acclimated release from Cedar Flats AF, and 500,000 for incubation at NPTH followed by early rearing at Sweetwater Springs Facility and final rearing and acclimated release from North Lapwai Valley AF). These release goals are taken from the 2008-2017 USvOR Management Agreement.

Provide final rearing and acclimation for up to 500,000 FCS juveniles at NPTH prior to direct release into the Clearwater River in June. The goal is to release the fish at a size of 50 fpp (9.07 grams).

In April, transfer up to 200,000 juvenile FCS to Lukes Gulch AF for final rearing, acclimation and release into the South Fork Clearwater River in mid June at a size of 50 fpp (9.07 grams).

In April, transfer up to 200,000 juvenile FCS to Cedar Flats AF for final rearing, acclimation and release into the Selway River in mid June at a size of 50 fpp (9.07 grams).

In February, transfer up to 500,000 juvenile FCS to Sweetwater Springs Facility for intermediate rearing. In March or April, transfer these fish to North Lapwai Valley AF for final rearing, acclimation and release into Lapwai Creek in May or June (based on water temperature). Release size goal is 50 fpp (9.07 grams).

Transport FCS from LGR to NPTH for holding and spawning, in accordance with the U. S. vs. Oregon Fall Fishery Agreement. Trapping at LGR begins in August based on water temperature at the dam, and typically ends by late November. The established goal of NPTH is to receive 30% of the adult trapped at LGR.

Trap and hold FCS that enter the ladder at NPTH for spawning. The adult ladder and trap at NPTH will be operated to collect FCS adults from September through early December.

In October, November and early December, spawn all FCS held at NPTH. Egg take goal is approximately 1,540,000 to account for rearing losses.

Incubate FCS eggs in heath trays until virology results are received (BKD ELIZA testing is conducted on every female, and eggs from females with an ELIZA value of 2.0 or higher may be culled). Eyed eggs within acceptable fish health standards are shocked, picked, and moved back into incubation rooms to hatch and "button up" prior to transfer to production tanks. Eyed eggs excess to program needs may be shipped to Lyons Ferry Hatchery.

Juvenile data recorded by hatchery staff will included: total number of fish reared, fish transfer dates and numbers, monthly mortality, fish size and growth rates, rearing densities, water temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, feed fed, release dates, and other data as required.

Adult trapping data recorded by hatchery staff will include: date of capture, capture location, sex of fish, fish length, existing fin clips, marks and/or tags, genetic samples, scale samples injection dosage, and other data as required.

Spawning data recorded by hatchery staff will include: Fork length, sex, fin clips, visual implant elastomer (VIE) tags, coded wire tag identification number, and side of opercle punch, and other data as required.

Fish health data recorded by hatchery staff will include: injection rates and amounts, prophylactic treatment rates and amounts, pathogen treatment rates and amounts, and other data as required.

Analysis of fish culture data will be performed by NPTHC management and M&E staff, and contracted Fish Health staff. It will be coordinated with comanagers, researchers, and others as required. Analysis will be conducted to maximize cost-effective production of high quality fish at all sites.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
176. Produce Hatchery Fish
Planning and Coordination
174. Produce Plan
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
Salmon Production - Spring Chinook (DELV-2)
Beginning in January, provide early rearing at NPTH for up to 625,000 SCS (400,000 for Meadow Creek direct release, 150,000 for acclimated release from Yoosa/Camp acclamation facility (AF), and 75,000 for acclimated release from Newsome Creek AF). These release goals are taken from the 2008-2017 USv.OR Management Agreement.

Beginning in January, provide final rearing for up to 200,000 SCS yearlings received from Clearwater Hatchery during the previous fall. Release up to 200,000 SCS yearlings at 18-20 fish per pound (fpp) (25.2 grams) directly into the Clearwater River in mid-April.

In April or early May, operate the permanent adult ladder and trap at NPTH to collect adult SCS. Beginning in May transport adults collected at weirs located on Lolo and Newsome creeks to NPTH.

In mid June, transport up to 400,000 SCS parr and release via helicopter into Meadow Creek/Selway River at a size of 117 fish per pound (3.88 grams).

In April or early May transfer up to 75,000 SCS from NPTH to Sweetwater Springs facility for intermediate rearing.

During August and September, spawn all SCS adults held at NPTH. Egg take goal to meet the entire SCS production goal is approximately 656,250 to account for rearing loss. Eggs from each group/stock will be reared separately. Fry will be transferred from incubation stacks to production room tanks in early February at approximately 1,270 fish per pound (.36 grams).

In late August, transport 75,000 SCS pre-smolts from the Sweetwater Springs facility to the Newsome AF for final rearing and acclimation. The pre-smolts will be released into Newsome Creek in mid October at a size of 29 fish per pound (15.6 grams).

In early September, transport 150,000 SCS pre-smolts from NPTH to the Yoosa/Camp AF for final rearing and acclimation. The pre-smolts will be released into the confluence of Yoosa/Camp creeks in mid October at a size of 34 fish per pound (13.34 grams).

In September, transfer up to 200,000 SCS from the Clearwater Hatchery to NPTH. These fish are final reared and released directly into the Clearwater River as yearlings the following spring. Target size at release is 18-20 fish per pound (25.2 grams).

Juvenile data recorded by hatchery staff will included: total number of fish reared, fish transfer dates and numbers, monthly mortality, fish size and growth rates, rearing densities, water temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, feed fed, release dates, and other data as required.

Adult trapping data recorded by hatchery staff will include: date of capture, capture location, sex of fish, fish length, existing fin clips, marks and/or tags, genetic samples, scale samples injection dosage, and other data as required.

Spawning data recorded by hatchery staff will include: Fork length, sex, fin clips, visual implant elastomer (VIE) tags, coded wire tag identification number, and side of opercle punch, and other data as required.

Fish health data recorded by hatchery staff will include: injection rates and amounts, prophylactic treatment rates and amounts, pathogen treatment rates and amounts, and other data as required.

Analysis of fish culture data will be performed by NPTHC management and M&E staff, and contracted Fish Health staff. It will be coordinated with comanagers, researchers, and others as required. Analysis will be conducted to maximize cost-effective production of high quality fish at all sites.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
176. Produce Hatchery Fish
Planning and Coordination
174. Produce Plan
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
Project Management and Regional Coordination (DELV-3)
The required permits/authorizations will be obtained in a timely manner in order to conduct project activities. NOAA Section 10 (Permit 1530) expires on December 31, 2010. Final copies will be submitted to BPA NEPA group on receipt of originals. Becky Johnson is working on spring and fall chinook HGMPs; will need all current HGMPs submitted to NMFS by Jan. 2010.

There are multiple forums relative to the planning and implementation of projects activities. They are primarily related to Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) fall Chinook mitigation and spring Chinook programs in the Clearwater River Basin as well as coordinating with local, state and Tribal entities.

NPTHC management staff will participate in NPT M&E, Clearwater River AOP, Lower Snake Compensation Plan, Lyons Ferry Complex AOP, Snake River Fall Chinook Coordination, Hatchery Review Team, and other meetings and workshops associated with project operations and for information sharing.

Submit as an attachment in Pisces the final NPTHC Annual Operation Plan (AOP) within 60 days of the start date of the period covered by that AOP.

Promote public awareness by conducting tours for the general public and groups at all sites, and by distributing informational pamphlets. Seek opportunities to speak at workshops, seminars, and training sessions.

Submit monthly reports by email to COTR and comanagers by 20th of following month every month during contract period.

Submit the final annual report for the previous contract period as an attachment in Pisces by November 30th of the current contract period.

Submit budget request for internal contractor review before submitting to BPA. Assuming this review takes 30 days, start this milestone 120 days before the end of the current contract. Develop and submit a contract package for upcoming contract period to BPA by October 1 each year. The package will include a statement of work and a spreadsheet detailing by line item the funding request.

Abide by the Nez Perce Tribe's policies and procedures (Human Resources, Finance, Resolutions, Administrative Actions, Safety, Legal, etc.) as required to manage project and personnel.

The Contractor shall report on the status of milestones and deliverables in Pisces. Reports shall be completed either monthly or quarterly as determined by the BPA COTR. Additionally, when indicating a deliverable milestone as COMPLETE, the contractor shall provide metrics and the final location (latitude and longitude) prior to submitting the report to the BPA COTR.
Types of Work:
Facility and Equipment Maintenance/Capital Improvements (DELV-4)
At all facilities, identify and submit for funding capital improvements that improve efficiency or help better meet established program goals. Identify and prioritize both short and long-term improvements to meet current and emerging needs.

At NPTH, maintain buildings, equipment, operational systems and grounds as specified in the Operations and Maintenance manuals provided by contractors. Follow prescribed maintenance schedules, and conduct repairs as needed.

In April, assemble well and surface water supply pipelines, setup backup systems and complete seasonal testing in preparation for receiving FCS subyearlings at Lukes Gulch AF. Completely winterize and deactivate the site after release is completed in June.

In April, assemble and setup ten 20' circular tanks, the surface water supply pipelines and backup systems and complete seasonal testing in preparation for receiving FCS subyearlings at Cedar Flats AF. Completely winterize and deactivate the site after release is completed in June.

In April, setup fourteen 6' semi-square tanks, four 16' circular tanks and six 20' circular tanks, the surface water supply system and complete seasonal testing in preparation for receiving FCS and/or SCS juveniles at the Sweetwater Springs facility. Completely winterize and deactivate the site after fish are transferred to other facilities by the end of September.

In August, complete operational setup and testing of "gravity flow" surface water system, backup generator at the Newsome Creek AF in preparation for receiving SCS presmolts from the Sweetwater Springs facility. Completely winterize and deactivate site after release is completed in October.

In August, complete operational setup and testing of the Yoosa/Camp AF, and fill the two "NATURES" pond in preparation for receiving spring Chinook juveniles from Site 1705. Completely winterize and deactivate site after release is completed in October.
Types of Work:
Provide Timely Exchange of Science-Based Information (DELV-5)
The Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) Department of Fisheries Resources Management (DFRM) takes seriously the need to make primary data, summary data, and metadata publically available. The NPT DFRM has recently invested in information technology infrastructure for networking, as well as upgraded the equipment for data storage, backup, analysis, summary, and dissemination. The NPT will utilize a centralized, region-wide database, developed to unify data collection activities spanning across multiple agencies. The NPT DFRM is participating in a regional effort initiated by the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) Snake Basin Data Group to place raw data into a central place with equal access to the participants. This neutral database (to be housed at Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission) ensures that each participating agency has access to the exact raw information. This allows co managers to work on the same data, thus making resource management decisions more transparent.

To date this project allows participating agencies to utilize the tools developed by Snake Basin Data Group to enter and input information for adult trapping and spawning of Chinook and steelhead. This project will be expanding to incorporate juvenile trapping, spawning ground/carcass, snorkeling, temperature, etc. information as well. This information is inputted into the program and then uploaded to a central database. Once in the central database, all participating agencies can access the same raw data for use in summarization, analysis, reporting, and co management decisions. In addition to equal access to all data by participating agencies, all other agencies and general public will have access to data summaries and downloads as identified by the Lower Snake policy group. These other agencies or groups do not participate in data input, but are allowed to view and extract agreed upon information summaries.

The DFRM has remote field offices (three) separate from the main office in Lapwai, ID. In order to securely store their files, as well as accommodate for file sharing, DFRM has installed file servers one at each location. These file servers are now backed up to an external device daily, in addition to being backed up to a main NPT file server in Lapwai every seven days. This redundancy ensures that the valuable (irreplaceable) information obtained and generated by the DFRM is recoverable in the event of a loss of a personal computer, server, etc.

DFRM now has the equipment infrastructure necessary to ensure efficient and timely public distribution of information on regionally accepted performance measures (ADSWG 2009), organized by the categories; abundance, survival-productivity, distribution, genetic, life history, habitat, and in-hatchery measures. The NPT DFRM invested in information technology infrastructure for networking, as well as upgraded the data storage, backup, analysis, summary, and dissemination from the individual user to the entire DFRM.

The Tribe intends on providing regionally accepted performance measure data following field data collections, data retrieval from the central database, summary, analysis, and reporting. In the past, DFRM projects used annual report submissions to the BPA web site (https://efw.bpa.gov/searchpublications/) thus making project information publicly available. Those submissions will still occur, however DFRM annual reports and summarized regionally accepted performance measures will be available on the new DFRM website http://www.nptfisheries.org that will allow easier access to the Tribe’s valuable information.
In addition to the DFRM website, appropriate components of program data and results will also be provided to the following websites: The tribe is a partner on the Snake Basin Hatchery working group that currently houses the Tribe’s adult trapping data (Snake Basin Data Group); Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) (http://www.psmfc.org/), including: PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS) (http://www.ptagis.org/), and the Regional Mark Processing Centre (RMPC) (http://www.rmpc.org/); Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (STEM) (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/isemp/index.cfm); Fish Passage Center (FPC) (http://www.fpc.org/); StreamNet (http://www.streamnet.org/); and NOAA Northwest Science Center (https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=238:1:0::NO:::). The Tribe currently is coordinating with the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission (http://www.critfc.org/) who is funded through the Accords to centralize and standardize all tribal data.

We understand data management and sharing is a regional issue receiving much attention. This is most efficiently achieved if a NPT data steward is able to participate in regional data management forums and processes. This proposal seeks funding to support 8% of a data steward FTE for the DFRM.
Types of Work:

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Supplement Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon. (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Salmon Production - Fall Chinook (DELV-1)
Objective: Supplement Clearwater Spring Chinook Salmon (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Salmon Production - Spring Chinook (DELV-2)
Objective: Coordinate project activities, data management, and communicate findings to resource managers. (OBJ-3)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Project Management and Regional Coordination (DELV-3)
Provide Timely Exchange of Science-Based Information (DELV-5)
Objective: Project Maintenance and Capital Improvements (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Facility and Equipment Maintenance/Capital Improvements (DELV-4)
Objective: Regional Decision-Making From Science-Based Shared Data (OBJ-5)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Provide Timely Exchange of Science-Based Information (DELV-5)
*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Back To Top

RM&E Protocols and Methods

There are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal.

Back To Top

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Salmon Production - Fall Chinook (DELV-1) 2012 2016 $5,218,346
Salmon Production - Spring Chinook (DELV-2) 2012 2016 $5,306,835
Project Management and Regional Coordination (DELV-3) 2012 2016 $489,697
Facility and Equipment Maintenance/Capital Improvements (DELV-4) 2012 2016 $689,962
Provide Timely Exchange of Science-Based Information (DELV-5) 2012 2016 $47,756
Total $11,752,596
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2010
2012 $2,213,655 Includes 3% annual increase from FY10 funding, and .083 FTE ($8,985) for a new DFRM Data Steward (new cost).
2013 $2,280,065 Includes 3% annual increase from FY10 funding, and .083 FTE ($8,985) for a new DFRM Data Steward (new cost).
2014 $2,348,467 Includes 3% annual increase from FY10 funding, and .083 FTE ($8,985) for a new DFRM Data Steward (new cost).
2015 $2,418,921 Includes 3% annual increase from FY10 funding, and .083 FTE ($8,985) for a new DFRM Data Steward (new cost).
2016 $2,491,488 Includes 3% annual increase from FY10 funding, and .083 FTE ($8,985) for a new DFRM Data Steward (new cost).
Total $0 $11,752,596
Item Notes FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Personnel Salaries, benefits, OT, holiday pay, etc. $1,283,920 $1,322,438 $1,362,111 $1,402,974 $1,445,063
Travel Includes per diem for remote site standby. $14,389 $14,820 $15,256 $15,723 $16,195
Prof. Meetings & Training Registration and other training fees. $2,915 $3,002 $3,093 $3,185 $3,281
Vehicles GSA and Tribally-owned vehicle costs. $66,410 $68,402 $70,454 $72,568 $74,745
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $205,870 $212,046 $218,407 $224,960 $231,708
Rent/Utilities Standard utilities and includes computer costs, toilet rental, etc. $154,956 $159,605 $164,393 $169,324 $174,404
Capital Equipment Indirect-exempt costs. Helicopter outplant, chiller maint., other annual contracts. NO capital equip $42,059 $43,321 $44,621 $45,959 $47,338
Overhead/Indirect Calculated at 22.5% $398,863 $410,829 $423,154 $435,848 $448,924
Other BPA required insurance policy for NPTHC assets. $44,273 $45,602 $46,978 $48,380 $49,830
PIT Tags $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $2,213,655 $2,280,065 $2,348,467 $2,418,921 $2,491,488
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
NPTH facilities include main incubation/rearing building with 5 offices, conference room, restrooms, break room, etc., shop building with office and bathroom, two large equipment storage buildings, trap/ladder,spawn building, and various water system buildings. Sweetwater Springs has one storage building, as does Lukes Gulch and North Lapwai Valley. Currently 10 GSA vehicles are leased, including one fish planting truck. The Tribe owns three fish planting trucks, a pickup truck and SUV associated with this project. Nine computers are used in operations, along with supporting office equipment. NPTH includes 9 Krebs sand filters, a Zero Gravity filter system, UV system, chiller and heat exchanger, and multiple surface water pumps and ground water wells. The entire facility is monitored by an alarm system at key water/system points, with historical data storage. All other sites have either portable or permanent alarm systems in place. Other key equipment includes six camp trailers, a boom truck, four cargo trailers, several portable pumps on trailers with VFD capability, two backup generators, two UTV's, a backhoe, small tractor, forklift, two large trailers, and various smaller trailers and equipment. Water delivery upgrades being considered for the future are moist-air incubators, a better heat exchanger and/or chiller, better river water filter system or secondary filtration system, additional ground water wells, and river water plumbing modifications. Capital equipment upgrades include an outdoor forklift, a 1 ton pickup, additional UTV, and other equipment.

Back To Top

Cost Share

None

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

Blankenship, H.L., and G.W. Mendel. 1993. Upstream passage spawning, and stock identification of fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River. Annual Report FY 92-93, December 1993. Ecovista. 2003. “Clearwater Subbasin Plan”, prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon, December 2004 NOAA 2005b. Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmon ESUs. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 123. June 28, 2005. NOAA. 2004. Biological Opinion – Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Columbia River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised and reissued pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE (D. Oregon). NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Portland, OR. November 30, 2004. USFWS/NPT. 1996. Biological Assessment of fall chinook smolt releases. Nez Perce Tribe and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 1996. Garcia, A., S. Bradbury, B. Arnsberg, S. Rocklage and P. Groves. 1999 Spawning Distribution of Fall Chinook Salmon in the Snake River: Annual Report 1998, Project No. 1998-01003, (BPA Report DOE/BP-3776-1). NPPC. 2000. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland OR. US vs. Oregon. 2005. 2005-2007 Interim Management Agreement for Upriver Chinook, Sockeye, Steelhead, Coho and White Sturgeon. U.S. District Court, Portland, Oregon Arnsberg, B.D., W.P. Connor, and E. Connor. 1992. Mainstem Clearwater River study: assessment for salmonid spawning, incubation, and rearing. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Final Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Project 88-15. Arnsberg, B.D., and D.P. Statler. 1995. Assessing summer and fall Chinook salmon restoration in the upper Clearwater River and principal tributaries. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Annual Report to the BPA, Project 94-034. Ashe, B. and D.B. Johnson. 1996. Nez Perce Tribe implementation plan for reintroduction of cuhlii (coho salmon) (BY96) in the Clearwater River basin. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Lapwai, ID. Connor, W.P. 1989. Mainstem Clearwater River Study: Assessment for salmonid spawning, incubation andrearing. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries 1988 Annual Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 88-15. Connor, W.P., B.D. Arnsber, E. Connor, and C.M. Prewitt. 1990. Mainstem Clearwater River Study: Assessment for salmonid spawning, incubation and rearing. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries 1989. Annual Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 88-15. Cramer, S.P. and Neeley D. 1992. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Genetic Risk Assessment. Report prepared for the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and the Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Lapwai, ID. Cramer, S. P. 1995. Selway River Genetic Resource Assessment Supplement to Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery genetic risk assessment. Report prepared for the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and the Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resource Management. Lapwai, Idaho. Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and coho, sockeye, and chum salmon in the Columbia River Basin past and present. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Special Scientific ReportFisheries No. 618. Hesse, J.A. and Cramer, S.P. 2000. Monitoring and evaluation plan for the Nez Perce tribal hatchery: Action plan. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. (Contract 97 AM 30423, project 1983-350-3). 96p. IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1995. Policies and procedures from Columbia River basin anadromous salmonid hatcheries. BPA. 92-043 Johnson, D.B., R.E. Larson, and C.R. Steward. 1995. Supplement to the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan. Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries. Lapwia, ID. Kincaid, H.L. 1997. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Genetic Management Plan. Report prepared for the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and the Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Lapwai, ID. Larson, R.E. and L. Mobrand. 1992. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Master Plan and Appendices. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. DE-A179-87-BP36809, Project No. 83-350. Lyon, J. 1995. Archeological excavations of nine of the fourteen proposed Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery facility sites. Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Resource Program. Report 95-NPT-3. Lapwai, ID. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1995. Proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon. Maynard, D.J., T.A. Flagg, and C.V.W. Mahnken. 1995. A review of seminatural culture strategies for enhancing the postrelease survival of anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:307-314. Maynard, D.J., T.A. Flagg, and C.V.W. Mahnken. 1996. Development of a natural rearing system to improve supplemental fish quality, 1991-1995. Progress report prepared for BPA. Project No. 91-055, Contract No. DE-AI79-91BP20651. Montgomery Watson. 1994. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Predesign Study. Report prepared for the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and the Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Lapwai, ID. National Marine Fishery Service 1999. Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River Basin. Incidential Take of Listed Salmon and Steelhead from Federal and Non-Federal Hatchery Programs That Collect, Rear and Release Unlisted Fish Species. Section 7 Consultations with Bonneville Power, U.S. Army corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA. 175 pp. NPT (Nez Perce Tribe). 1994. Nez Perce Tribe Fish Health Policy. Department of Fisheries Resources Management, Nez Perce Tribe. Lapwai, ID. Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (NPT and IDFG) 1990. Columbia Basin System Planning. Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Clearwater River Subbasin. September 1, 1990. Prepared by the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management. (NPT) 1997. Response to questions for the three-step process review of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, dated October 31, 1997. Attachment to letter from Samuel N. Penney, Chairman Nez Perce Tribe to John Etchart, Chairman Northwest Power Planning Council dated November 3, 1997. Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, and the Confederation of Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation. (Nez Perce Tribe et al) 1995. Anadromous fish restoration plan: WY-KAN-USH-MI-WA-KISH-WIT: Spirit of the salmon. Volumes I and II. Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Portland, OR. Northwest Power Planning Council. (NPPC) 1994. 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. Northwest Power Planning Council. (NPPC) 1999. Artificial Production Review, Council document 99-15. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Ecology Group. 1997. A review of “Response to Questions for the Three-Step Process Review of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery”. Document prepared for Northwest Power Planning Council Staff dated December 5, 1997. Powers, E. 1997. Letter from E. Powers, BPA to W. Stelle, NMFS, dated June 12, 1997, requesting ESA Section 7 consultation, and transmitting a Biological Assessment. Richards, M. 1968. Appraisal of project results for salmon and steelhead introductions into the Clearwater River drainage, Idaho. Annual Project Closing Report, State of Idaho, Fish and Game Department for the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program. Robertson, J. 1997. Bonneville Power Administration Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Record of Decision. Dated October 8, 1997, Portland, OR. Ruesink, Robert G. 1997. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery – Biological Assessment. File #501.1100 1-4-97-I-94. Statler, D., T. Cichosz, D. Saul, A. Davidson, W. Warren, D. Rollins, J. Willey, T. Tate, T. Papanicolaou and S. Juul. 2001. Clearwater Subbasin Summary. Review Draft prepared for Northwest Power Planning Council. May25, 2001. Stelle, W. 1997. Letter from W. Stelle, NMFS to E. Powers, BPA, dated November 21, 1997 re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion on the 1998 - 2002 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations in the Columbia River Basin [0682]. Steward, C.R. 1996. Monitoring and evaluation plan for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management, Lapwai ID. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Contract No. 87b136809, Project No. 83-350. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS) 1995a. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS) 1995b. Biological Opinion for 1995 to 1998 Hatchery Operations in the Columbia River Basin. Section consultation with: National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Nez Perce Tribe. (BPA et al) 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program, Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Nez Perce Tribe. (BPA et al) 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program. Portland, OR. Wilson, Nancy I. 1993. Archeaological Reconnaissance of Proposed Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Facility sites. Nez Perce Cultural Resource Program. BPA Project No 83-350. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior, and Nez Perce Tribe. 1997. Final environmental impact statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery program. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, Report DOE/EIS-0213. Cramer and Neeley. 1992. Genetic risk assessment of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery master plan. Prepared for Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management. Lapwai, Idaho 83540. Garcia, A.P., R.D. Waitt, C.A. Larsen, S.M. Bradbury, B.D. Arnsberg, M. Key, and P. A. Groves. 1999. Fall chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in the Snake River Basin upriver of Lower Granite Dam, 1998. In A.P. Gracia, ed. Spawning distribution of fall chinook salmon in the Snake River. Annual Report 1998. US Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, Contract 98 AI 37776.

Back To Top

Notes

None

Back To Top

RME / AP Category Review Assessments

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1983-350-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1983-350-00 - Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1983-350-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003.

Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium.

The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish.

One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists.

Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention.

Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal.

Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation.

SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Adequately described.


4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Adequately described.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003. Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium. The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish. One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists. Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention. Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal. Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation. SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately described. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately described.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: