Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Suppress Brook Trout Populations in the Upper Malheur Subbasin. |
| Proposal ID | 32017 |
| Organization | Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lawrence Schwabe |
| Mailing address | HC 71 100 Pasigo St. Burns, OR 97720 |
| Phone / email | 5415731375 / lschwabe@centurytel.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Daniel Gonzalez |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Malheur |
| Short description | Determine the magnitude or level of hybridization of brook and bull trout within the Upper Malheur Basin, document physical features of F1/F2 hybrids, and determine effective way to supress or eliminate brook trout from the Malheur basin. |
| Target species | Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
Northern boundary of project area. |
|
|
Southern boundary of project area. |
|
|
Eastern boundary of project area. |
|
|
Western boundary of project area. |
| 44.18 |
-118.58 |
approx central point of above |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 199701900 |
Evalute the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur River Basin |
Research based project to determine seasonal distribution, population trends, possible limiting factors, genetic analysis, and age class structure of native salmonids in the Malheur River Subbasin. |
| 200000900 |
Logan Valley Mitigation Site |
Land acquisition to restore critical fish and wildlife habitat in the Upper Malheur River Basin. |
| 199405400 |
Bull Trout Life History, Genetics, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors in Central and NE Oregon. |
Study on the competition of sympatric populations of brook and bull trout. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
|
|
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1. Determine and document the level of hybridization and sympatric populations of brook and bull trout. |
Task 1.1. Take fin samples and digital photographs of bull trout, brook trout, and hybrids. |
1 |
$21,504 |
Yes |
|
Task 1.2. Take digital photographs of bull trout, brook trout and hybrids. |
1 |
$4,248 |
|
| Objective 2. Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in areas where bull trout spawning activity occurs. |
Task 2.1. Capture brook trout with the use of a backpack shocker or dip nets. |
3+ |
$29,170 |
|
|
Task 2.2. Capture brook trout using pheromone-based traps. |
3+ |
$28,417 |
|
|
Task 2.3. Capture brook trout using a weir trap located below the confluence of Lake and Big Creek. |
3+ |
$21,141 |
|
|
Task 2.4. Capture brook trout on redds using angling methods. |
3+ |
$2,474 |
|
| Objective 3. Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in areas outside current bull trout spawning areas. |
Task 3.1. Capture and remove brook trout in Lake Creek using electroshocking methods. |
3+ |
$28,600 |
|
|
Task 3.2 Capture brook trout in High Lake using gill nets. |
3+ |
$8,849 |
|
| Objective 5. Coordinate with state, federal, tribal and private land owners and review current project designs and/or present project information. |
Task 5.1. Continue to coordinate with federal, state and tribal land managers in the Malheur subbasin for project updates and planning of future activities relative to bull trout. |
3+ |
$18,730 |
|
|
Task 5.2. Present project results at professional meetings and local watershed groups. |
3+ |
$6,376 |
|
|
Task 5.3. Enter, analyze, and write quarterly and annual report. |
3+ |
$37,986 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 1. Determine and document the level of hybridization and sympatric populations of brook and bull trout. |
2003 |
2003 |
$28,000 |
| Objective 2. Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in areas where bull trout spawning activity occurs. |
2003 |
2006 |
$324,808 |
| Objective 3. Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in areas outside current bull trout spawning areas. |
2003 |
2006 |
$149,796 |
| Objective 5. Coordinate with state, federal, tribal and private land owners and review current project designs and/or present project information. |
2003 |
2006 |
$232,368 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $187,969 | $193,608 | $199,416 | $205,398 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 4. Monitor bull and brook trout population trends and spawning activity in the North Fork and Upper Malheur River basin. |
Task 4.1. Determine population trend of adult bull trout spawners in the North and Upper Malheur basin by past and present spawning surveys. |
3+ |
$13,978 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 4. Monitor bull and brook trout population trends and spawning activity in the North Fork and Upper Malheur River basin. |
2003 |
2007 |
$55,912 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $14,397 | $14,828 | $15,272 | $15,730 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 2 |
$66,755 |
| Fringe |
28% |
$18,697 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies, truck leases and maintence, utilities, fishery supplies |
$44,185 |
| Travel |
Two vehicles X 12000 miles/yr X $0.345/mile |
$8,280 |
| Indirect |
28% |
$45,121 |
| Capital |
Office Lease |
$12,000 |
| NEPA |
NA |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: 0 |
$225 |
| Subcontractor |
Genetic Analysis - Oregon State University |
$20,000 |
| Other |
Professional meetings, public outreach travel |
$6,210 |
| $221,473 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $221,473 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $221,473 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| US Forest Service |
one technitian, biologist support |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Biologist support, provide some fisheries equipment |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| US Bureau of Land Management |
biologist support |
$1,000 |
in-kind |
| US Fish and Wildlife Service |
Biologist support |
$1,000 |
in-kind |
Other budget explanation
NA
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:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Do not fund. Reviewers viewed this as the worst possible ecological situation for effective brook trout suppression, with a headwater lake stronghold of brook trout. The likelihood of project efforts being successful in suppressing brook trout were felt to be minimal. The approach of using pheromone-emitting "bait" brook trout is a promising but largely unproven concept, and this is not an appropriate setting for its testing.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
Reviewers suggest the removal of Objective 1 ($25,000) since it is included in 199701900. In addition, the reviewers question whether complete removal is possible and expressed concern over the persistence of hybridization despite suppression activities. CBFWA recommends that this proposal, in its current state, should not be funded. Although the overall goal of the project is important to bull trout recovery in the Upper Malheur Subbasin, CBFWA believes the likelihood that the proposed suppression projects will be successful is minimal using the proposed strategies and under the existing ecological situation. The project proposal is well written and the project objectives are biologically appropriate. However, the proposal does not demonstrate that the project benefits (i.e., brook trout suppression) are likely to persist over the long term because they will be compromised by a source population of brook trout occupying the headwater lake and river system. Further, the effectiveness of the proposed suppression techniques (i.e., pheromone-based trapping, angling, and gillnetting) is questionable, especially given that the entire headwater lake (High Lake) and river (Lake Creek) system is inhabited exclusively by brook trout. Chemical eradication of the headwater lake source population of brook trout should be considered to ensure successful long-term brook trout suppression efforts.
Objective 1 will assess the basin-wide level of hybridization and sympatric populations of brook and bull trout. This objective is important to document the magnitude and location of hybridization between native bull trout and non-native brook trout for future suppression and eradication programs. CBFWA suggests that the project proponents consider submitting this request as a separate project or include this objective in a modified proposal. Objective 1 is important; however, during the project review it was noted this objective is covered under another project.
Objective 2 concerns implementing brook trout suppression efforts in areas where bull trout spawning activity occurs. Pheromone-based trapping may be a promising technique to attract and remove spawning brook trout; however, CBFWA believes the study area does not appear to be an ideal setting to conduct a quantitative study to test this methodology. Research currently underway by Mike Young (USFS) and David Schmetterling (MFWP) will assess the effectiveness of pheromone "bait" trapping in tributaries of the Blackfoot River drainage, Montana during 2002. Results of their study may provide insight in the effectiveness of the technique. Further, the success of angling and weir trapping to suppress brook trout will be minimal in this setting.
The project proponents are strongly urged to use chemical eradication techniques (antimycin and rotenone) to eradicate the existing population of brook trout in High Lake and Lake Creek. Case histories of related projects have shown that gillnetting and spot electrofishing have a low probability of success in achieving the desired goal of the project. Further, the proposed suppression efforts throughout the system will have minimal success if this source population is not removed.
CBFWA believes that monitoring brook trout and bull trout population trends (Objective 4) and coordinating with state, federal, tribal and private landowners (Objective 5) are important elements of this project and should be considered for funding if the scope of the proposal is modified as suggested. A change in techniques and methods could make this project a high priority. CBFWA proposes that the sponsors eradicate the source population (i.e., headwater (lake) and stream). Following verification of effectiveness through M&E efforts, CBFWA proposes the sponsors could consider restocking the lake/stream with native redband trout pending approval of other cooperating fish and wildlife managers. The proposed Phase 2 of this project should not be initiated without CBFWA review/approval.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Do not fund. Reviewers viewed this as the worst possible ecological situation for effective brook trout suppression, with a headwater lake stronghold of brook trout. The likelihood of project efforts being successful in suppressing brook trout were felt to be minimal. The approach of using pheromone-emitting "bait" brook trout is a promising, but largely unproven concept, and this is not an appropriate setting for its testing.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: