FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 24025

Additional documents

TitleType
24025 Narrative Narrative
24025 Sponsor Response to ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titlePend Oreille Subbasin Native Westslope Cutthroat Population Study
Proposal ID24025
OrganizationWashington Trout (WT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameNick Gayeski
Mailing addressPO Box 402 Duvall WA 98019
Phone / email4257881167 / nick@washingtontrout.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleMountain Columbia
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Lower
Short descriptionEstablish baseline information on instream habitat-trout population structure to assess risks to population persistence and effectiveness of land management actions on Colville National Forest intended to benefit native cutthroat trout.
Target specieswestslope cutthroat trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.69 -117.1 Pend Oreille subbasin
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1998 Native Trout Survey, Yakima/Naches Basins; Final Report Spring 2000
1999 Native Trout Survey, Colville NF, DNA results pending; Final Report pending
2000 Yakima Basin Index of Biotic Integrity Initiated; Year one field sampling completed.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199802600 Native Trout survey, 1999 support; will provide additional ecological data.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1.Select streams and Sites; Prepare maps for Field Use a)Phone/email consultation with Tom Shuhda,Colville National Forestb) Review maps. 3 $1,500
2.Plan for Field Work and Schedule Crew(s). a)Phone/email contact Dr. Pat Trotter, Bill McMillan, Tom Shuhdab) In-person meetings 3 $1,800
3.Order Equipment and Supplies a) Assess equipment and supply needsand place orders 3 $750
4.Benefits and Indirect Costs on subtotal of 4050 Benefits @ 25%; Indirects @ 20% $2,025
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$6,400$6,700

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
Obj.1.Collect mature pre-spawning female westslope from 6 nearby non-study streams for enumeration of eggs, analysis of otoliths, and whole-body lipids analysis (Yr.1) and from subset of study populations in Yr.3. Electroshock known and likely spawning reaches during late April and early May. 2 $8,000
Obj. 1. Subcontract from Obj.1, Year 1.: Egg skeins, otoliths, carcasses to Flathead Lake Biological Station (est. samples from 240 fish) 2 $12,000 Yes
Obj. 1. Subcontract for Year 3 (contingent) Estimated sample of 40 females from 4 of the study streams for fecundity, otoliths, and lipids (160 fish) $0
Obj. 2.Conduct foot surveys of entire fish-bearing lengths of the 9 study streams during July/August Identify and map pools and riffles, and probable spawning areas.Measure and map gradients at regular intervals. 1 $10,000
Annual Report Writing and Communications,GIS. Year One Report to BPA/ISRP on results of Year 1; preparations of misc. communications (slides, web) and database development; GIS Products 1 $6,000
Objs. 3 and 4. Conduct Population estimates and stream habitat measurements at all study sites annually, beginning year 2. Conduct Hankin-Reeves visual fish counts calibrated by multi-pass electroshock removals and habitat unit estimates and measurements at all study sites.Take length and weight measurements from electroshocked samples. 2 $0
Obj. 5 & 6. Develop Age estimates from length and otolith data. Measure fish condition and growth, and develop related indices. Develop Age and length data for each study population. Beginning Year 2. a) obtain length and weight data during annual censusesb) calculate Condition Factors using length and weight datac) and develop length-at-age statistics for each population; estimate age-specific growth from this data (with sub-contractor Reed). 2 $0
Obj. 5 (cont.) Conduct length-frequency analyses on length data, supplemented by otolith data from years one and three. Start in year 2; revise in year 3.(with sub-contrator Reed) 2 $0
Obj. 7..Evaluate Feasibility of surveying spawning in study reaches, May/early June. Obtain spawning data, May/early June. Beginning Year 2. Field visit sites May, June for:a) spawning surveys, redd counts and/or b) estimate spawning start date, finish date, and peak time, each population, c) subsample with electroshoking to determine presence of ripe fish $0
Supplies, expendibles Objectives 1 - 7 All Tasks 3 $5,000
Travel Objectives 1 - 7 (mileage, food,lodging) All Tasks 3 $11,000
Obj. 8 And 9.. Develop age-structured population models, each population. Beginning Project year 2. a) Using data aquired (objs. 1,3,&5), estimate means, variances and distribtions of age-specific parametersb) input parameter values into RAMAS Stage matrix population models (with sub-contractor Reed.) 2 $0
Obj. 8 & 9.. a) Evaluate relationships between Land-use/habitat conditions (Obj. 4) and structure and dynamics of each population (Objs. 1,3, 5, 6 and synthesis in 8). a) statistical analyses of project specific and comparative regional stream habitat and population data; b) hypothesis evaluation. 1 $0
Obj. 8 and 9. b) Develop viability analyses/risk assessments for each population (with sub-contractor Reed). Comparison of projections of stochastic matrix models under a range of parameter values/distirubtions drawn from the posterior distributions of vital rates and reflecting alternative hypotheses regarding relationships between stream channel conditions 1 $0
and population vital rates. 1 $0
Benefits on Personnel costs 25% 2 $6,000
Indirect costs on all Non-subcontract costs 20% 2 $9,200
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objectives 3 through 9 2003 2004 $141,500
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$64,500$77,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: Field crews @$25/hr. Planning, Report writing, GIS time and data analysis @ $30/hr. $28,050
Fringe Wages and salary @ 25% $7,013
Supplies $5,000
Travel Est. 6 Roundtrip Seattle to Metalline Falls + in-basin travel,food & lodging for 75 crew days $11,000
Indirect 20% all non-sub-contract costs $10,213
Subcontractor Flathead Lake Biological Station (fecundity,otoliths, and lipids) $12,000
$73,274
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$73,274
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$73,275
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
USFS Colville National Forest Lodging 3 to 4 persons (30 days) $3,000 in-kind
Use of 1 Backpack electroshocker 60 days $1,200 in-kind
Use of USFS vehicle 20 days,4000 miles $1,400 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Feb 9, 2001

Comment:

Fundable but a response is needed. The response needs to include a list of hypotheses that better acknowledge existing literature and more robustly test the relationships between trout population and sedimentation from forest management practices. This could be important baseline information as roads are considered for decommissioning or as new roads are proposed for construction.

Quantitative relations between fish population health/abundance and watershed quality/health are not well defined currently for any salmonid species. Does a watershed that is 50% degraded by some set of measures lose 50% of its fish production potential, or is the relation some non-linear function? This proposal is to begin definition of such a relation for cutthroat trout. The ISRP is aware that continuing and focused study urgently needs to be done to bolster the status of westslope cutthroat trout. This proposal would be strengthened by demonstration of better awareness of the results of existing studies, including an assessment and review of existing methods for predicting incremental change of population health with habitat change.

The ISRP questions whether the cost (killing cutthroat in streams where the population is jeopardized by non-native trouts) offsets the benefit to sacrificing fish from other streams to obtain age-at-length and fecundity data. Proposers are urged to utilize existing data. Similarly, sacrificing fish for whole-body lipid analysis was not justified by the proposal.

Identifying inter-annual fluctuations in trout population size (Platts and Nelson, N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgt. 1988) would be a valuable additional objective for the project. The ability of the study to successfully identify the effects of fine sediments from forest roads will likely hinge on the choice of study streams that are identical except that they straddle a range of sediment coincident with some biological threshold. A maximum road density of 3.7 mi/sq. mi. may be too low to show an effect. USDA-Forest Service personnel, Region 1, have described stream sediments vs. road density. Reviewers recommend that such relations be examined and used to show that a range of habitat conditions related to road density is likely to exist across the proposed study streams. They also suggest the proposers consider directly assessing the pathway(s) of sediment impact, specifically (a) pool volume possibly legislating summer carrying capacity of adult fish and (b) possible reduction of critical living space by sediment in winter (Cunjak, Can. J. Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 1996).


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

Not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers. Some of the work proposed here is redundant with existing information and existing project activities. Genetic data already exists for Fourth of July Creek, one of the sampling locations proposed in this project. In-channel habitat data also exists for several of the sampling locations proposed in this project. This project seems to assume that these 9 cutthroat populations differ across their range. There is a wealth of literature on this subject. Lethal sampling is unwarranted for amount of information derived.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 6, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. This was a strong response, reflecting some additional planning and reprioritization by the proposers. Lethal sampling is eliminated. A stronger incorporation of relevant published work is demonstrated, and the study appears now to have a higher probability for providing valuable results. To the minus side, the inclusion of two new researchers as advisors, at project expense but without any description of their contributions, is unwarranted. Three years will not be enough to gain the most useful information.

Managers presently have inadequate quantitative basis for relating habitat condition and population productivity and viability. The absence of such relations precludes clear answers to questions such as:

  1. How much and what kinds of restoration are needed to restore a viable population?
  2. What level of habitat alteration will jeopardize population viability?
Consequently, a manager's selection of a proposed alteration or restoration project can always be called into question. Data to overcome this deficiency are long overdue. This project has potential to begin development of such a relation.

CBFWA Comments: Do not fund. Not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers. Some of the work proposed here is redundant with existing information and existing project activities. Genetic data already exists for Fourth of July Creek, one of the sampling locations proposed in this project. In-channel habitat data also exists for several of the sampling locations proposed in this project. This project seems to assume that these 9 cutthroat populations differ across their range. There is a wealth of literature on this subject. Lethal sampling is unwarranted for amount of information derived.


Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
May 30, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. Disagree with ISRP and agree with CBFWA that the project is not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers, and that much of the work is potentially duplicative with other completed work. The project should not be funded until all parties can agree that the work is necessary.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 19, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Mar 25, 2002

Comment:

Consistent with Council recommendation, BPA does not intend to fund.