FY07-09 proposal 200706900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Determine status of migratory bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. |
| Proposal ID | 200706900 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish & Game |
| Short description | The project is designed to evaluate population status migratory populations of bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. |
| Information transfer | Information will be stored in the Streamnet Database (www.streamnet.org) and published in agency reports. The information will be used to determine status of migratory bull trout populations in the South Fork Payette river and locate long term monitoring efforts to determine population trends. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Lance Hebdon | Idaho Fish and Game | lhebdon@idfg.idaho.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Lance Hebdon | Idaho Fish and Game | lhebdon@idfg.idaho.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Middle Snake / Payette
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Fork Payette River | South Fork Payette River and tributaries |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull TroutSection 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Determine presence of migratory bull trout | Determine presence of migratory bull trout in 3 known resident populations of bull trout in South Fork Payette River basin. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | Strategies identified in the Subbasin Plan to address this problem included “determine status of fluvial migratory bull trout in the Upper South Fork Payette River including abundance, life history and habitat use.” |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Survey south Fork Payette River Drainage for Migratory Bull trout | Conduct surveys designed to capture and tag migratory size bull trout in the South Fork Payette River and tributaries not controlled by fish weirs. Surveys will be conducted by snorkeling and electrofishing. | 8/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $126,198 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Focal Area: Tributaries |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Track radio tagged bull trout to determine movement patterns within the South Fork Payette River Watershed | Monitor movement of radio tagged bull trout to determine habitat use and movement patterns of adult bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. Tracking will be done from roads, hiking and fixed wing aircraft | 8/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $76,019 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Focal Area: Tributaries |
||||
| Install Fish Monitoring Equipment | Monitor migratory bull trout in three streams with resident bull trout populations. | Install temporary fish weirs on three streams with known resdient bull trout populations to intercept migratory adult bull trout during pre and post spawning movements. | 8/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $28,717 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | Mark migratory bull trout with PIT tag and fin clip | Mark migratory bull trout captured with PIT tags and fin clips. Use mark recapture methods to estimate population size of migratory bull trout in each population. | 8/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $114,529 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | Radio Tag migratory adult bull trout captured at fish weirs | Tag up to 40 migratory adult bull trout captured at tributary weirs and during directed fish surveys in the South Fork Payette River to determine fish movement. | 5/7/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $7,750 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring Focal Area: Tributaries |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | Transfer bull trout data to Streamnet | Transfer fish capture data from weirs to Streamnet database | 11/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 8 month technicians | $65,860 | $68,353 | $70,970 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $22,437 | $23,558 | $24,735 |
| Supplies | 100 PIT tags | $190 | $190 | $190 |
| Capital Equipment | camp trailer to house field personnel | $15,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | 2 PIT tag readers | $4,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Telemetry reciever | $3,800 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | telemetry reciever repair/upgrade | $1,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | weir materials | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel | vehicle rental 6 months/ year and mileage at 12k miles/year | $3,300 | $3,300 | $3,300 |
| Supplies | camp groceries for field crews | $5,760 | $5,760 | $5,760 |
| Supplies | flight time for radio tracking | $5,000 | $5,000 | $3,000 |
| Supplies | radio tags | $5,850 | $1,900 | $0 |
| Totals | $137,197 | $108,061 | $107,955 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $353,213 |
| Total work element budget: | $353,213 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 10-1-2009
Comments: This project is designed to determine the status of the migratory bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. The timespan described in this proposal should be sufficient to answer the basic questions. Depending on the results of this project long term monitoring may be initiated.
Final deliverables: Annual reports, data and status report regarding bull trout populations in the South Fork Payette Watershed.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The proposal identifies the problem of lack of information concerning bull trout distribution in the subbasin. The need to collect data to identify sites for monitoring bull trout population trends and evaluating the contribution of core areas to bull trout recovery is defined. The summary does not identify any other related projects but the narrative connects this proposed work to cooperative efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Boise National Forest to identify the status of migratory bull trout in other core areas within the Southwest Idaho Recovery Unit. This project is designed to inform additional investigations to help identify sites that could be used to determine population trends for bull trout in the future. The only biological objective defined is to determine abundance and habitat use of migratory bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. This objective is tied to the subbasin plan. Specific timelines should be provided in a response. The management value to be derived from the information obtained in this project should be clearly identified. It is also not clear that the sponsors have considered work done elsewhere on bull trout ecology and how that work differs from what is proposed here. The big question is, how will this project advance our knowledge of migratory bull trout and facilitate their management? The methods described in the work elements should be expanded to address the adequacy of installing weirs on three streams rather than less or more. Also, justification of the target of tagging 40 adult bull trout is necessary. Is this number reasonable to establish reasonable population estimates using capture recapture methods? One of the objectives is related to habitat, but no methods are described for selecting sampling sites, determining sample sizes, or collecting data. No statistical procedure is described for analysis of these data or extrapolation beyond sample sites. Some discussion of how the results will be monitored and evaluated is necessary. How much confidence can be placed in abundance and distribution estimates based on the sampling proposed? More details concerning facilities, equipment, and personnel are necessary. It is unclear what the time commitment of the supervisory personnel will be. The exact duties and qualification of the three fishery technicians are also not specified. Will they all have similar qualifications and duties? Will project personnel have the quantitative skills to complete the data analysis? Purchase of a trailer for only eight months use in a short study should be better justified. Plans for information transfer include storage of data in StreamNet, annual reports, and reporting of incidental takes to USFWS. Will there be results worthy of broader reporting in regional scientific or technical outlets?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The proposal identifies the problem of lack of information concerning bull trout distribution in the subbasin. The need to collect data to identify sites for monitoring bull trout population trends and evaluating the contribution of core areas to bull trout recovery is defined. The summary does not identify any other related projects but the narrative connects this proposed work to cooperative efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Boise National Forest to identify the status of migratory bull trout in other core areas within the Southwest Idaho Recovery Unit. This project is designed to inform additional investigations to help identify sites that could be used to determine population trends for bull trout in the future. The only biological objective defined is to determine abundance and habitat use of migratory bull trout in the South Fork Payette River. This objective is tied to the subbasin plan. Specific timelines should be provided in a response. The management value to be derived from the information obtained in this project should be clearly identified. It is also not clear that the sponsors have considered work done elsewhere on bull trout ecology and how that work differs from what is proposed here. The big question is, how will this project advance our knowledge of migratory bull trout and facilitate their management? The methods described in the work elements should be expanded to address the adequacy of installing weirs on three streams rather than less or more. Also, justification of the target of tagging 40 adult bull trout is necessary. Is this number reasonable to establish reasonable population estimates using capture recapture methods? One of the objectives is related to habitat, but no methods are described for selecting sampling sites, determining sample sizes, or collecting data. No statistical procedure is described for analysis of these data or extrapolation beyond sample sites. Some discussion of how the results will be monitored and evaluated is necessary. How much confidence can be placed in abundance and distribution estimates based on the sampling proposed? More details concerning facilities, equipment, and personnel are necessary. It is unclear what the time commitment of the supervisory personnel will be. The exact duties and qualification of the three fishery technicians are also not specified. Will they all have similar qualifications and duties? Will project personnel have the quantitative skills to complete the data analysis? Purchase of a trailer for only eight months use in a short study should be better justified. Plans for information transfer include storage of data in StreamNet, annual reports, and reporting of incidental takes to USFWS. Will there be results worthy of broader reporting in regional scientific or technical outlets?