FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28012
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 28012 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28012 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28012 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Four-Step Planning to Identify Safety-Net Projects for Idaho Steelhead |
| Proposal ID | 28012 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Sharon W. Kiefer |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 |
| Phone / email | 2083343791 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore, IDFG, Chief of Fisheries |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | This proposal addresses RPA 175. Planning process identified by NMFS to prioritize populations and determine strategies to alleviate near-term extinction risk. |
| Target species | Snake River Summer-Run Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| This project encompasses both Salmon and Clearwater subbasins. | ||
| 46.4 | -115.66 | Clearwater River Subbasin |
| 46.4 | -115.66 | Salmon River Subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 175 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 175 | NMFS | BPA shall, in coordination with NMFS, USFWS, and the relevant state and Tribal comanagers, fund the four-step planning process described above as quickly as possible and, if so determined by that process, implement safety-net projects as quickly as possible at least for the following salmon and steelhead populations: 1) A-run steelhead populations in the Lemhi River, main Salmon River tributaries, East Fork Salmon River, and Lower Salmon River; 2) B-run steelhead populations in the Upper Lochsa River and South Fork Salmon River; and 3) spring/summer chinook populations in the Lemhi, East Fork, and Yankee Fork Salmon rivers, and Valley Creek. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| RPA Action 175 | Implementation of RPA | |
| 199005500 | IDFG Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers | Will provide data needed for planning |
| 199107300 | IDFG Natural Production Monitoring | Will provide data to needed for planning |
| 199700100 | IDFG Captive Rearing Project for Salmon River Chinook Salmon | Will provide methodology needed for planning |
| 199705700 | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Salmon River Production Program | Will provide data needed for planning |
| 199703800 | Nez Perce Tribe Preserve Salmonid Gametes Program | Will provide data and methodology needed for planning |
| Lower Snake River Compensation Program | Will provide data and methodology needed for planning, will coordinate with planning | |
| U.S. v Oregon | Planning proposal will provide information aiding development of a new Columbia River Fishery Management Plan |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify steelhead populations in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins that are candidates for safety-net strategies via artificial production intervention or other means. | a. Synthesize existing information to evaluate population status and structure. | 1 | $141,200 | |
| b. Evaluate quantitative and qualitative extinction risk methodologies based on existing information base. | 1 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| c. Conduct extinction risk analysis for steelhead in the Clearwater and Salmon Subbasins. | 2 | $50,000 | Yes | |
| d. Identify critical uncertainties for future research and monitoring. | 1 | $3,000 | ||
| e. Identify candidate population(s) for intervention. | 2 | $0 | ||
| 2. Develop safety-net strategies, including artificial production intervention to reduce near-term extinction risk for candidate populations. | a. Develop safety-net options based on artificial production intervention (in or out of basin). | 3 | $0 | |
| b. Assess feasiibility of options and prioritize to develop primary safety-net strategy(ies). | 3 | $0 | ||
| c. Assess whether alternatives to artificial production intervention could provide similar level of protection and benefit until other recovery measures address limiting factors. | 3 | $0 | ||
| 3. Conduct benefit-risk analsysis of proposed strategy(ies) to determine whether intervention is warranted. | a. Evaluate quantitative and qualitative benefit-risk methodologies based on existing informatin base and primary strategy(ies). | 3 | $0 | |
| b. Conduct benefit-risk analysis on proposed safety-net strategy(ies) for steelhead. | 3 | $0 | ||
| c. Identify critical uncertainties. | 3 | $0 | ||
| 4. Develop Hatchery Genetic and Management Plan(s), if intervention with artificial production warranted as a safety-net, to guide implementation. | a. Write HGMPs and coordinate with appropriate agencies and tribes. | 3 | $0 | |
| b. Develop analogous implementation plan if safety net action other than artificial intervention is selected. | 3 | $0 | ||
| c. Conduct appropriate implementation procedures, including NWPPC 3-step process, NEPA, and ESA | 3 | $0 | ||
| d. Develop a forum for information and technology transfer to provide peer review and discussion of safety-net activities and protocols related to HGMP implementation. | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify steelhead populations in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins that are candidates for safety-net strategies via artificial production intervention or other means. | 2002 | 2003 | $206,200 |
| 2. Develop safety-net strategies, including artificial production intervention to reduce near-term extinction risk for candidate popualtions. | 2003 | 2003 | $125,000 |
| 3. Conduct benefit-risk analsysis of proposed strategies to determine whether intervention is warranted. | 2003 | 2004 | $200,000 |
| 4. Develop Hatchery Genetic and Management Plan(s), if intervention with artificial production warranted as a safety-net, to guide implementation. | 2003 | 2004 | $125,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $250,000 | $200,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $81,100 | |
| Fringe | $28,400 | |
| Supplies | $8,000 | |
| Travel | $3,000 | |
| Indirect | $35,700 | |
| Subcontractor | $50,000 | |
| $206,200 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $206,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $206,200 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Do not fund - no response required
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057; an integrated response is needed from the various proposers with participation by NMFS that addresses the ISRP concerns and demonstrates that the Four-Step Safety-Net Process is well coordinated, scientifically sound, and consistent across the basin.Data available for extinction risk assessments are going to provide no more than crude estimates of risk. Caution is needed with statements and models that include carrying capacity, since it is itself a dynamic value. Confidence in risk estimates will be very low and a source of disagreement. The process must be developed via methods that will ensure buy-in by all agencies. There must be agreement as to what confidence levels are acceptable before an action is taken. Standards need to be defined for the type and quality of data minimally required for such assessments, including population and sub-population structure. Proposing to obtain only review and comment by the associated agencies cannot be expected to produce support for the process.
The process is meant for critically depressed populations. Some populations seem to have been identified for consideration before any process was specified to identify "critically depressed stocks." The process, if initiated, should be designed to include a systematic process for identifying these stocks across the basin.
The process assumes that artificial propagation can provide a safety net for critically depressed stocks when identified. What database is available from the Snake River to provide that confidence? Recent reports including project 199102800 in the Mountain Snake Province, conclude that survival of migrants to Lower Granite Dam declines with increasing abundance. These results may implicate artificially high densities caused by release of hatchery fish as an additional cause for decline of wild fish.
There seems to be misunderstanding of the intent of the process. Use of donor stocks was identified in one proposal as a possible need. How can a donor stock be considered for use under a program designed to preclude extinction of a local population? Another proposal indicated that the process was going to help increase abundance in the target population, and it was described as any other project trying to cause increase in population size with hatchery fish.
Fish populations in the Middle Fork Salmon River have declined as a result of problems in the migration route or ocean. These problems should be solved rather than acting (use of hatchery fish) to further jeopardize fish populations in the Middle Fork. If, at some time in the future it can be demonstrated that these populations are in imminent danger of extinction, and at the same time it can be shown there will be immediate action to fix conditions in the migration route or ocean, it may make some sense to cryopreserve gametes or use short-term propagation as "last ditch" efforts to save some of the genetic material, but a sound technical basis for the required assessment does not exist.
The last step in the process is development of a HGMP for each propagation program. The ISRP's opinion is that the template for preparation of these documents provides little confidence that the strict requirements needed for artificial propagation of endangered species will result. The template calls for detailed information concerning how a hatchery presently operates and some inquiries as to how the potential impact of the program will be reduced. If the 4-step process is to proceed, detailed guidelines for operation of these facilities must be developed.
In summary, the ISRP concludes that the 4-step process is not ready to go forward, and may even be a flawed strategy. Its technical credibility depends on objective selection of populations for safety net consideration, on the availability of information to permit development of strategies that will do more good than harm, and on standards for management of artificial production. In addition, the process does not seem to be coordinated with the subbasin planning effort. None of these elements are in place.
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal
Nov 30, 2001
Comment:
Addresses RPA 175. There is a current effort to combine all 4-step process proposals into one unified effort to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided. Refer to Safety Net Artificial Production Program proposal.Comment:
Do not fund projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057; there is need for documentation that the Four-Step Safety-Net Process is well coordinated, scientifically sound, and consistent across the basin.Data available for extinction risk assessments are going to provide no more than crude estimates of risk. Caution is needed with statements and models that include carrying capacity, since it is itself a dynamic value. Confidence in risk estimates will be very low and a source of disagreement. The process must be developed via methods that will ensure buy-in by all agencies. There must be agreement as to what confidence levels are acceptable before an action is taken. Standards need to be defined for the type and quality of data minimally required for such assessments, including population and sub-population structure. Proposing to obtain only review and comment by the associated agencies cannot be expected to produce support for the process.
The process is meant for critically depressed populations. Some populations seem to have been identified for consideration before any process was specified to identify "critically depressed stocks." The process, if initiated, should be designed to include a systematic process for identifying these stocks across the basin.
The process assumes that artificial propagation can provide a safety net for critically depressed stocks when identified. What database is available from the Snake River to provide that confidence? Recent reports including project 199102800 in the Mountain Snake Province, suggest that survival of migrants to Lower Granite Dam declines with increasing abundance. These results may implicate artificially high densities caused by release of hatchery fish as an additional cause for decline of wild fish.
Use of donor stocks was identified in one proposal as a possible need. How can a donor stock be considered for use under a program designed to preclude extinction of a local population? Another proposal indicated that the process was going to help increase abundance in the target population, and it was described as any other project trying to cause increase in population size with hatchery fish.
Fish populations in the Middle Fork Salmon River have declined as a result of problems in the migration route or ocean. These problems should be solved rather than acting (use of hatchery fish) to further jeopardize fish populations in the Middle Fork. If, at some time in the future it can be demonstrated that these populations are in imminent danger of extinction, and at the same time it can be shown there will be immediate action to fix conditions in the migration route or ocean, it may make some sense to cryopreserve gametes or use short-term propagation as "last ditch" efforts to save some of the genetic material, but a sound technical basis for the required assessment does not exist.
The last step in the process is development of a HGMP for each propagation program. The ISRP's opinion is that the template for preparation of these documents provides little confidence that the strict requirements needed for artificial propagation of endangered species will result. The template calls for detailed information concerning how a hatchery presently operates and some inquiries as to how the potential impact of the program will be reduced. If the 4-step process is to proceed, detailed guidelines for operation of these facilities must be developed.
In summary, the ISRP concludes that the 4-step process is not ready to go forward, and may even be a flawed strategy. Its technical credibility depends on objective selection of populations for safety net consideration, on the availability of information to permit development of strategies that will do more good than harm, and on standards for management of artificial production. In addition, the process does not seem to be coordinated with the subbasin planning effort. None of these elements are in place.
This process would need to be consistent with NMFS's effort post-Hogan and the Council's subbasin planning effort. They need to do a review of what is possible, to demonstrate with data. As proposed and described in the response, the methods are not described in adequate detail for scientific review. Given the uncertainty associated with hatchery intervention, the region needs an agreed upon standard and approach that is subjected to independent peer review and applied across the basin. No agreement exists regarding viability analyses. Intervention should include a wide spectrum of management activities including harvest management, habitat restoration, etc. The tools chosen should depend on the stock status.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. This is a planning process to prioritize populations and determine strategies to alleviate near-term extinction risk.
Comments
Idaho's SNAPP proposal. Will be integrated with other projects. After coordination is complete under the umbrella process, this project will directly implements RPA Action Item 175.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Withdrawn from consideration. See 28061. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
175
Comment:
Safety-Net Artificial Propagation Program (SNAPP) (CRITFC #28061) - this proposal was submitted between the preliminary and final reviews by the ISRP, after the deadline. It is currently being reviewed by the ISRP at the special request of Council staff.The above project (#28061) is an integrated version of the following projects that were reviewed as part of the provincial solicitation and review.
- 28012, Four-Step Planning to Identify Safety-Net Projects for Idaho Steelhead (IDFG/IOSC)
- 28015, Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River (NPT)
- 28055, Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper Lochsa River B-Run Steelhead (CRITFC)
- 28056, Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for South Fork Salmon River B-Run Steelhead (CRITFC)
- 28057, Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Lower Salmon River A-Run Steelhead (CRITFC)