FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200200400
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Safety-Net Artificial Propagation Program (SNAPP) |
| Proposal ID | 200200400 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, Washington Department of Fish and Game, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, (SNAPP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Saang-Yoon Hyun |
| Mailing address | 729 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5037311265 / hyus@critfc.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bill Robinson, NMFS |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Establish contingency action plans, using best available propagation techniques, to prevent extinction of key populations of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead while necessary improvements to main-stem passage and tributary habitats are effectuated. |
| Target species | Snake River Spring/summer Chinook and Snake River Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.56 | -115.36 | This proposal encompasses the extent of anadromous fish in the Snake River Basin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hatchery RPA Action 176 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | 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 |
|---|---|
| n/a |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 28057 | Four Step Safety-Net Plan for L.Salmon R. A-Run Steelhead | replaces |
| 28056 | Four Step Safety-Net Plan for S.F. Salmon B-Run Steelhead | replaces |
| 28055 | Four Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper Lochsa B-Run Steelhead | replaces |
| 28012 | Four Step Planning to Identify Safety-Net Projects for Idaho Steelhead | replaces |
| 28015 | Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River | integrates unique tasks |
| 199703800 | Preserve Listed Salmonid Stocks' gametes | Cryopreserved samples of M.F. Salmon may be used in implementation of a potential SNAPP intervention |
| 199604300 | Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project | Benefit/risk assessment will be useful in similar work in SNAPP |
| 199005500 | IDFG Steelhead Supplementation Studies | Will provide data for analyses |
| 199107300 | IDFG Natural Production Monitoring | Will provide data for analyses |
| 199700100 | IDFG Captive Rearing Project | Will provide methods for options analyses |
| 199705700 | SBT Salmon River Production Program | Will provide data for analyses |
| 199902000 | Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon | Will provide data for analyses |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Develop artificial propagation contingency plans for intervention on populations at excessive risk of extinction | 1.1. Develop list of "At-Risk" spring/summer chinook and steelhead populations | completed | $0 | |
| 1.2. Conduct Extinction Risk Analyses on "At-Risk" populations | FY'02 | $143,000 | Yes | |
| 1.3. Develop intervention strategies and preferred option for populations at excessive risk of extinction | FY'02 - '03 | $76,000 | Yes | |
| 1.4. Conduct Benefit/Risk Analyses on preferred propagation strategies | FY'02 - '03 | $229,000 | Yes | |
| 1.5. Complete Hatchery & Genetic Management Plans | FY'03 - '04 | $0 | Yes | |
| 2. Determine stock structure of spring/summer Chinook in the M.F. Salmon River sub-basin | 2.1. Determine current and historic metapopulation stock structure from existing genetic data and analysis of archived scale samples | FY'02 - FY'03 | $92,000 | Yes |
| 3. Implement HGMP contingency plans as necessary and appropriate | Not included in this proposal | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Develop artificial propagation contingency plans for intervention on populations at excessive risk of extinction | 2002 | 2004 | $738,000 |
| 2. Determine stock structure of spring/summer Chinook in the M.F. Salmon River sub-basin | 2002 | 2003 | $92,000 |
| 3. Implement HGMP contingency plans as necessary and appropriate | 2003 | 2006 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $290,000 |
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.6 | $27,400 |
| Fringe | @38% | $10,400 |
| Supplies | $3,000 | |
| Travel | $3,500 | |
| Indirect | @20.9% | $5,700 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | $30,000 |
| Subcontractor | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes | $25,000 |
| Subcontractor | Nez Perce Tribe | $122,000 |
| Subcontractor | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | $4,000 |
| Subcontractor | TBA | $76,000 |
| Subcontractor | TBA | $229,000 |
| Subcontractor | TBA | $4,000 |
| $540,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $540,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $540,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
The prime contractor will the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. The principal investigator is Chris Beasley. The other funds will likely be direct contracts to the fishery entities and not subcontractors of CRITFC. For the state agencies, these funds could be provided via adding a task to existing LSRCP contracts.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal combines all safety net projects for the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Province. This project addresses RPA 175.Comment:
Not Reviewed. This proposal was submitted after the response deadline and was not reviewed by the ISRP. The proposal combines all 4-step process proposals into one unified effort to with the goal to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided.Comment:
Recommend as critical to implement RPA 175. The project will provide planning for the Artificial Propagation Safety-Net Program to intervene with artificial production techniques, if appropriate, to prevent extinction of ESA-listed populations of salmon and steelhead. In response to ISRP comments it is a comprehensive proposal that consolidates several safety-net proposals that were submitted to the Mountain Snake Provincial Review and later withdrawn. We will work with the Council to schedule review of this combined proposal by ISRP. BPA RPA RPM:
175
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
Not Reviewed.
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)
Council recommendation: The ISRP provided a "do not fund" recommendation for projects #28012, #28015, #28055, #28056, and #28057. The ISRP stated that these new artificial production actions need to be well coordinated , scientifically sound, and consistent with NMFS's effort post-Hogan and the Council's subbasin planning effort. The ISRP stated that the above proposals were not described adequately, lacked standard approaches, and reached no agreement regarding viability analysis. The ISRP, as emphasized that "intervention" should include a wide spectrum of management activities including harvest management, habitat restoration, as well as artificial production.
The ISRP is currently reviewing the integrated SNAPP proposal (#28061). Programmatic Issue 9 relates specifically to ESA-based artificial production initiatives for at-risk populations and the Biological Opinion "safety-net artificial production program" -- (SNAPP). As described in the programmatic recommendation, this project, and others that may be developed, need to: (1) explicitly identify the factors causing the decline and currently limiting the population and what actions are being taken to address those; (2) develop a decision-tree that allows for a transparent evaluation of the interventions and includes an "exit strategy" for successful and unsuccessful evaluations; (3) explicitly demonstrate how the initiatives are consistent with the Artificial Production Report of 2000, and will participate in the Artificial Production Review and Evaluation currently underway.
The Council understands that Bonneville views this proposal as critical to meeting its BiOp requirements. That being the case, Bonneville is likely to fund the proposal even if the ISRP recommendations continue to be critical of the program. The Council recommends that Bonneville funding be guided by the conditions outlined above and in programmatic issue 9, as well as the recommendations that are made in the ISRP's forthcoming recommendations for the project. The Council recommends that Bonneville contracting actions document how those conditions are addressed.
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA 175.Comment:
Delayed start. Realign work into 04 and 05. Need follow up with BPA and sponsorComment: