FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28056

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

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:

Comments
CRITFC'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:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
175

Comment: