FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28026
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 |
---|---|
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 / joe_krakker@fws.gov |
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 | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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.
Not applicable - no response required
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.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.
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.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits 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
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
Comment:
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.