FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199405400

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

This increase primarily reflects the integration of bull trout objectives for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW). OPSW is designed as a Tier 2 monitoring approach attempting to be comprehensive in nature and use an organized and systematic approach. The remaining increase is the result of the increased complexity of the objectives and tasks.

Reason for change in scope

This proposal attempted to integrate many of the bull trout activities proposed for the Oregon portion of the Blue Mountain Province. This was done so that activities on bull trout are biologically more meaningful, administratively more appropriate and economically more efficent. In addition, this change reflects the increasing need to gather critical information on ESA-listed bull trout (such as their use of mainstem areas where they may be impacted by the Federal Columbia River Power System) and assist in recovery planning.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The budget should be reduced and is in dire need of re-thinking and reorganization. It is excessive for what the investigators propose to accomplish. The outline of objectives and tasks in the budget seems to follow more than one organizational system, makes little sense, and does not always match with the proposal text. In section 5, for example, the numbering system repeats itself. And what are items one to four? Are these for other basins, and if so why are they in this proposal? Are they included in the budget total? Budget Task 1.4 refers to seven loci in analyses, but the methods refer to 10 loci. Publication/communication costs (over $95K, adding the amounts shown for this in several places) constitute over 1/3 of the budget and have not been justified. Section 8 refers to underwater video but this is not mentioned in the proposal. Section 8 includes $2,600 for phone service and utilities; should Indirect costs not cover this? Section 8 also duplicates the categories Personnel, Fringe, Supplies, Travel, and Indirect. Should this be? For the first fringe item, the amount ($119, 863) is 60% of the personnel line above it. Reviewers question whether that fringe benefits rate is justified. They further question whether even the 41.4% fringe benefits rate shown for the second personnel item is justified. Are these rates standard for ODFW? This does not appear to be the case in other proposals. There is a very significant increase in the budget; if this proposal is collating other activities, where were they funded before? Also needing justification is the budget component for work in the Deschutes basin (section 5, Objective 1; $60K?).

The project lacks a genuine habitat component, which is crucial for understanding bull trout abundance and distribution, and for restoration and monitoring. Objective 5 is worthwhile but does not directly relate to Objectives 1-4, does not include habitat or juvenile surveys, and is unclear about how the information will be used in a monitoring program. Objective 5 should be submitted as a new proposal with greater detail on how the surveys will be conducted, a component that includes habitat conditions and habitat change, a juvenile component, and a clear plan for the use of the information in monitoring. A clearly defined monitoring plan for bull trout in the Blue Mountain Province is necessary to provide context and justification for the EMAP-based surveys. Objective 5 is especially tenuous given the problems associated with assessing bull trout abundance from redd counts.

It is not clear how the investigators will identify bull trout in the hand (or observed) as fluvial or resident.

If a component of projects 27017 and 28014 is implemented, this project should be coordinated with it.

Comment:

The RFC indicates that the proposal does not provide a review of all the diet studies conducted for bull trout in anadromous and non-anadromous waters within the Blue Mountain Province. The RFC proposes that revisions of the proposal should include a more thorough review of previous diet studies. The majority of the hypotheses may have been answered by previous studies.

The USFWS suggests that "this project would be complimentary to proposal 27017 and provide additional needed information in the Grande Ronde. The objectives will characterize the fine-scale population structuring of bull trout within the Grand Ronde River subbasin; investigate the seasonal movements of fluvial bull trout of the Lostine and Imnaha rivers and Catherine Creek; describe the diet of fluvial bull trout in streams with relatively few anadromous salmonids present; and employ EMAP protocols to monitor and evaluate the status and trends in bull trout populations. This project will help implement reasonable and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 1.1, 11.2, and 11.A.2.2.b in the FCRPS biological opinion. The USFWS recommends the funding of this proposal, particularly the EMAP protocols for monitoring and evaluating and seasonal movement component be funded. The USFW believes that Proposal 27017 and 199405400 are complimentary and will assist in assessing bull trout recovery and implementation of the Biological Opinion."

Comment:

The project's habitat component is restricted to temperature, and the reviewers were concerned that this is not sufficient for understanding bull trout abundance and distribution, and for restoration and monitoring, but the apparent deficiencies may be covered by Project #199202604, and coordination with Project #27017 and/or 28014 is promised.

A clearly defined monitoring plan for bull trout in the Blue Mountain Province is necessary to provide context and justification for the EMAP-based surveys. Objective 5 is especially tenuous given the problems associated with assessing bull trout abundance from redd counts.

The Council should examine the project's 60% fringe benefit rate. It seems extraordinarily high. Other State of Oregon projects in this Province are also high, ranging from 40% to 60%, whereas, in a sample of most other Blue Mountain and Clearwater proposals, the range was 10% to 38%, the great majority lying between 21% and 36%.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
Not BiOp Related

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
USFWS BiOp Related

Comment:

ODFW's bull trout monitoring and assessment project has been proposed under the same project number in several provinces (Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountain and Middle Snake). Only work in both the Plateau and Blue Mountain provinces could be considered as ongoing for FY01. The Council made a funding recommendation for the project in the Columbia Plateau. Bonneville still has the project under review before making a final funding determination in the Plateau.

Most of the work proposed in the Blue Mountain province was considered new work in the regional priorities discussions. ODFW prioritized the new work, including radio telemetry studies and EMAP monitoring for bull trout. ISRP supported the project, including the EMAP work associated with the project, but cautioned about the pilot project nature of EMAP as approved in the Columbia Plateau and suggested coordination with Project 27017 (see Imnaha issue 2). The Fish and Wildlife Service commented in a letter to the Council that the project "will help implement reasonable and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 11.1 and 11.A.3.1.a-f in the FCRPS BO." Those aspects of the Biological Opinion relate to the use of the Lower Snake reservoirs by bull trout and the counting and determining presence and size of populations of bull trout in the four Lower Snake reservoirs. They also suggested the project would serve as a compliment to Project 27017.

Bonneville noted that most work in the project should be considered as new work (it was) and rated the proposal as not fundable at this time, stating the actions proposed did not relate to a specific RPM in the USFWS Biological Opinion on Bull Trout and that "Most, if not all of this work, is in the tributaries and not the mainstem." As discussed in the general issue on bull trout projects, the Council recognizes the apparent dispute between the Service and Bonneville on the implementation of the Biological Opinion on bull trout.

The Council would prioritize the new work proposed in this ongoing project as an element of the fish and wildlife program responsibilities, leaving for the discussions between the Service, Bonneville, the Council and other interested parties the ultimate implementation of the bull trout Biological Opinion. The Council notes that the Council adopted a programmatic direction in the Columbia Plateau province that recognized that bull trout work in the tributaries is a legitimate endeavor and expenditure by Bonneville pursuant to the Northwest Power Act. We do, however, find that the need to conduct the EMAP activity in the project as not essential to its successful implementation and agree with the ISRP on the pilot nature of EMAP in the Columbia Plateau. Though ISRP endorsed the use of EMAP in this project, the Council does not recommend funding that component at this time and would await results of the EMAP portion of 199405400 as proposed and approved in the Columbia Plateau before expanding that aspect to the Blue Mountains.

The Council recommends a budget increase of $241,371 for Fiscal Year 2002.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website