FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28015

Additional documents

TitleType
28015 Narrative Narrative
28015 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28015 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBenefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River
Proposal ID28015
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBill Arnsberg
Mailing address3404 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544
Phone / email2084767296 / billa@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this projectJaime Pinkham
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionAssess 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 speciesSpring and Summer Chinook Salmon (Snake River ESU's)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits 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


Recommendation:
withdrawn
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Withdrawn, see project number 28061.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
175


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

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.

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.