FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28015
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 |
|---|---|
| 28015 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28015 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28015 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 28015 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Bill Arnsberg |
| Mailing address | 3404 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084767296 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jaime Pinkham |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Assess relative benefits and risks associated with current population status, genetics and potential for management actions and implement appropriate action to insure long-term persistence of chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin. |
| Target species | Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon (Snake River ESU's) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.2972 | -114.5914 | Mouth of Middle Fork Salmon |
| 45.0945 | -114.7322 | Mouth of Big Creek |
| 44.8918 | -114.7222 | Mouth of Camas Creek |
| 44.8083 | -114.8112 | Mouth of Loon Creek |
| 44.7696 | -115.0903 | Mouth of Indian Creek |
| 44.5546 | -115.2974 | Mouth of Sulphur Creek |
| 44.4493 | -115.2301 | Mouth of Marsh and Bear Valley Creeks |
| 44.4105 | -115.3717 | Mouth of Elk Creek |
| 44.4492 | -115.2301 | Bear Valley Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 199703800 | Preserve Listed Salmonid Stocks Gametes | Cryopreserved samples in the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin may be used to promote genetic diversity. |
| 198335000 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Project has a Benefit Risk Assessment that has been developed by the Nez Perce Tribe |
| 199604300 | Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project | Project has a Benefit Risk Assessment that has been developed by the Nez Perce Tribe |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordinate development of the benefit/risk assessment with appropriate management agencies and independent scientists. NPT/CRITFC | a. Facilitate involvement of independent experts in population biology, conservation biology, quantitative genetics, rare animal breeding in the development and review products developed in Objectives 2, 3 and 4 | 0.1 | $7,406 | |
| 1. | b.Facilitate co-manger participation in the development and review and of products developed in Objectives 2, 3, and 4. | 0.1 | $7,406 | |
| 2. Assess status of spring and summer chinook salmon in tributary streams of the Middle Fork Salmon River. NPT/CRITFC | a.Gather and develop a summary of existing demographic data, including data analysis completed under the PATH and CRI processes. | 0.02 | $1,852 | |
| 2. | b. Gather and summarize existing life history data. | .16 | $14,812 | Yes |
| 2. | c. Gather existing genetic data and identify opportunities to expand with archived scale samples. Look at genetic uniqueness, genetic similarity, and gene and gene flow. | .16 | $14,812 | Yes |
| 2. | d. Conduct genetic analysis on archived scale samples to establish baseline (historical) stock structure. | .16 | $14,812 | Yes |
| 2. | e. Examine existing data to establish historic and current metapopulation stock structure. | 0.1 | $7,408 | Yes |
| 2. | f. Develop a peer review publication on the status and need for management intervention on Middle Fork Salmon River chinook salmon to be published in Conservation Biology, North American Journal Fisheries Science or other journal. | 0.3 | $30,000 | Yes |
| 3. Assess the potential management alternatives that achieve and maintain adequate adult spring and summer chinook spawner abundance to promote long-term persistence of chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin. NPT/CRITFC | a. Analysis of risks to the recipient (target and non-target spawning aggregates) as well as donor stocks (if they differ), from impacts associated with: (a) captivity (b) genetic interactions, (c) ecological interactions, and (d) other risks. | 0.25 | $22,111 | Yes |
| 3. | b. Develop list of objectives, criteria for evaluation, and an estimated timeframe to achieve objectives. | 0.02 | $1,852 | Yes |
| 3. | c. Develop list of potential benefits expected to result from implementation of the proposed action. | 0.01 | $926 | Yes |
| 4. Identify the preferred management actions to achieve and maintain adequate adult spring and summer chinook spawner abundance to promote long-term persistence of chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin. NPT/CRITFC | a. Establish the preferred management action and document all B/RA analysis in a summary report. | 0.16 | $14,812 | Yes |
| 4. | b. Develop a Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Plan to address uncertainties and data gaps associated with the preferred management action. | 0.13 | $11,109 | Yes |
| 5. Effectively communicate project results to management agencies and independent scientists. NPT/CRITFC | a. Participate in state and regional workshops and conferences and present project information. Seek integration with other projects to relate to other life stage. | 0.05 | $3,704 | Yes |
| 5. | b. Attend NMFS Endangered Species Act meetings and workshops to relate project information, seek project reviews and incorporate recommendations to ensure adequate protection of an ESA listed species. | 0.05 | $3,704 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation of the preferred management action starting in FY 2003. Cost for FY's 2003-2006 would depend on the management action chosen. The estimated cost of $25,000 would be for staff support to finish this BR/A if not completed in 2002. | 2003 | $25,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $25,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 2006 | $0 | |
| 2003 | 2006 | $0 | |
| 2003 | 2006 | $0 | |
| 2003 | 2006 | $0 | |
| 2003 | 2006 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.5 | $25,438 |
| Fringe | @ 38% | $4,346 |
| Supplies | Office supplies, reports, phone, computer | $4,000 |
| Travel | Air travel, per diem, car rental, helicopter | $9,000 |
| Indirect | @ 20.9% | $8,942 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Genetic analysis/risk assessment CRITFC | $105,000 |
| $156,726 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $156,726 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $156,726 |
| 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:
The Middle Fork Chinook population is regarded by the managers as depressed. In 2000, IDFG initiated a process to use a population viability model developed by the University of Idaho (UI). The UI model was not referenced in the proposal. The IDFG suggests that some of the proposed work has been performed by the IDFG. There is a current effort to combine all Four-Step process proposals (the Four-Step process is mandated in the BiOp) into one unified effort to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided.Defer to the consolidated SNAPP proposal, in which the unique tasks from this proposal have been maintained. If the consolidated SNAPP proposal does not received funding, this proposal should be considered as a stand alone proposal for funding, as it was the only "original RPA 175/SNAPP type proposals" specifically addressing chinook salmon. The IDFG PVA analysis was not coordinated with NPT and was not available at time of proposal submittal.
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. Supports improvements in survival, abundance, and distribution by identifying key opportunities for implementing actions. Perform Benefit/Risk Analysis for Chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River in order to facilitate future management decisions for the populations.
Comments
One of several projects that could be combined in SNAPP and RME pilot in Salmon River basin. Also, planning component is underway via the TRT process. A B/R analysis seems like an intensive and broad undertaking with many objectives.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Withdrawn, see project number 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)