FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28026

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
28026 Narrative	Narrative
28026 Cover Letter	Narrative Attachment
28026 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP Programs to address artificial production reforms identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and other regional processes.
Proposal ID	28026
Organization	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (USFWS/LSRCP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Joe Krakker
Mailing address	USFWS, LSRCP Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way Boise, ID, 83709
Phone / email	2083785321 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Dan Herrig, USFWS, LSRCP Coordinator
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Assess LSRCP Programs to identify needed artificial production reform measures, coordinate proposed reforms among co-managers, select and define potential reforms, and develop funding implementation.
Target species	Snake River steelhead, Snake River spring/summer chinook, Snake River fall chinook, and Middle Columbia River steelhead, bull trout.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45	-114.98	Salmon subbasin

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hatchery RPA Action 169

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 169	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall fund the development of NMFS-approved HGMPs for implementation, including plans for monitoring and revising them as necessary as new information becomes available. HGMPs have to be completed first for the facilities and programs affecting the most at-risk species (Upper Columbia and Snake River ESUs), followed by those affecting mid-Columbia, and then the Lower Columbia ESUs. HGMPs for all the Columbia basin hatchery programs and facilities should be completed (and approved by NMFS) by the 3-year check-in.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2000	* HGMP for LSRCP endemic steelhead program in Tucannon River Basin.
2000	* HGMP for LSRCP endemic steelhead program in Touchet River, Walla Walla River Basin.
	* both HGMP's listed above were completed to meet requirements of NMFS 4(d) rule for listed steelhead ESU's and will be included in the proposed analyses of LSRCP programs to assess potential for futher reforms measures.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	RPA Action 170	Will identify capital modifications identified as necessary in the HGMP planning process for LSRCP anadromous fish programs.
	RPA Action 173	Will identify LSRCP reforms in the HGMP planning process for implementation.
	RPA Action 174	Will coordinate LSRCP marking strategies in regional process.
	RPA Action 175	Will coordinate development of safety-net projects affecting LSRCP programs.
	RPA Action 176	Will coordinate development of HGMP's for Grande Ronde and Tucannon river spring/summer Chinook safety-net programs.
	RPA Action 177	Will coordinate implementation of approved safety-net programs affecting LSRCP programs.
	RPA Action 178	Will coordinate development of new safety-net projects affecting LSRCP programs.
	RPA Action 179	Will coordinate LSRCP involvement in recovery planning.
	RPA Action 180	Will coordinate LSRCP involvement in regional monitoring program.
	RPA Action 182	Will coordinate LSRCP involvement in identifying appropriate populations for research.
	RPA Action 183	Will coordinate LSRCP involvement in identifying appropriate monitoring.
	RPA Action 184	Will coordinate LSRCP involvement in assessing reform measures.
	NMFS Art. Prop. Biop	Will coordinate development of LSRCP HGMP's which meet requirements for NMFS Artificial Propagation Biological Opinion.
	FWS LSRCP bull trout Biop	Will coordinate development of LSRCP HGMP's which meet requirements for FWS bull trout Biological Opinion.
	NWPPC's Sub basin Planning	Will coordinate development of HGMP's for LSRCP programs in the Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountain, and Mountain Snake Provinces which meet objectives developed in sub basin planning.
	ESA Recovery Planning	Will coordinate development of HGMP's for LSRCP programs which meet requirements of Recovery Plans developed for listed species.
	US v Oregon CRFMP	Will coordinate development of HGMP's for LSRCP programs which meet the agreements negotiated in the CRFMP.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP Programs to address artificial production reforms identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and other regional processes.	1. Evaluate each program and identify measures needed to address artificial production reforms identified in FCRPS Biological Opinion for existing LSRCP programs.	2	$128,444
	2. Develop appropriate strategies to facilitate any identified reforms for existing LSRCP Programs.	2	$128,444
	3. Coordinate proposed LSRCP reforms among LSRCP cooperators, with other co-managers, and with ongoing regional processes.	2	$256,887
	4. Develop HGMP’s based on selected reforms.	2	$214,073
	5. Write project proposals for funding reform measures.	2	$128,444

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP Programs to address artificial production reforms identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and other regional processes.	2003	2003	$899,107

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003
$899,107

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
N.A.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N.A.			$0

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
N.A.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N.A.			$0

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
N.A.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N.A.			$0

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: costs vary by co-manager	$422,279
Fringe	costs vary by co-manager	$155,867
Supplies		$68,313
Travel		$52,787
Indirect	costs vary by co-manager	$157,046
Capital	none	$0
NEPA	none	$0
PIT tags	# of tags: none	$0
Subcontractor	none	$0
Other	none	$0
		$856,292

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$856,292
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$856,292
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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Not applicable - no response required

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

No response needed. A scientific review is not applicable. This does not lend itself to technical review, but from a scientific point of view the ISRP is not convinced that HGMP's will actually provide guidance on protecting ESA listed stocks. See general comments on 4-step process.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Development of the HGMP's (for the LSRCP program) are directed specifically to address hatchery reforms identified in the FCRPS Biop (RPA 169). These reform measures are identified as reform measures that go beyond existing (or non-existing since they have not completed their hatchery production Biop.) NMFS jeopardy criteria (related to hatchery production programs) to obtain additional (off-site mitigation) benefits to get the hydrosystem out of jeopardy. The HGMP was chosen by NMFS, NWPPC, and Federal Caucus as the format for addressing those reforms. These reform actions (unless developed in the normal LSRCP process and fundable under our existing budget) are now mandated to the hydrosystem action agencies (not the LSRCP program). The proposal outlines a coordinated approach to:

assess our existing programs,
identify potential reform measures,
coordinate those measures with the other ongoing regional processes (ESA, US v Oregon, NWPPC, etc. along with our tribal trust and compensation responsibilities), and
develop HGMP's for agreed upon reform measures.

Presently, funding does not exist in the LSRCP budget to accomplish this task (and it is not a LSRCP funding responsibility). This proposal would provide all of the LSRCP co-managers the staff to accomplish the above objectives within the processes we are legally mandated to participate in to address off-site mitigation. Existing LSRCP programs are not legally mandated to develop HGMP's.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
N/A

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

A scientific review is not applicable. This does not lend itself to technical review, but from a scientific point of view the ISRP is not convinced that HGMP's will actually provide guidance on protecting ESA listed stocks. See general comments on 4-step process.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Development of HGMPs will aid regional planning efforts, evaluate the impacts of artificial propagation on listed species, and facilitate the application of hatchery reform.

Comments
The FCRPS BiOp required HGMPs as a critical step in hatchery reform and regional planning

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

This project is under the Direct Funding MOA. This will not require additional funds from the Integrated Fish and Wildlife Program. Costs appear to be high compared to previous HGMP development, and BPA will work with the USFWS to refine these estimates.

BPA RPA RPM:
169

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
169

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

This project will be funded through the Direct Funding MOA between the USFWS and BPA under the LSRCP. This will not require additional funds from the Integrated Fish and Wildlife Program. Costs for Phase 2 of HGMP development, will be refined with USFWS.