FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28007

Additional documents

TitleType
28007 Narrative Narrative
28007 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28007 Cover Letter Narrative Attachment

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCauses and effects of nonnative trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins
Proposal ID28007
OrganizationUSDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJason Dunham
Mailing address316 East Myrtle Street Boise, ID 83702
Phone / email2083734380 / jbdunham@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this projectBruce Rieman
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionProvide a better understanding of nonnative trout invasions and their effects on native salmonids. Deliver models and information for evaluating management alternatives. RPA 152 will be most significantly enhanced by this work.
Target speciesNative bull (Salvelinus confluentus), cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki), resident rainbow or steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha); Nonnative brown (Salmo trutta), brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), and rainbow trout (O. mykiss)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
This project will occur in both the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins
45 -114.98 Salmon subbasin
46.4 -115.66 Clearwater subbasin
45.56 -115.36 Mountain Snake province
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 152 NMFS The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following:
NMFS Action 183 NMFS Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

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
1. Broad-scale analysis of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution 2. Multi-scale field study of species status and distribution A1- Develop preliminary predictive models A2 - Design field studies B2 - Survey habitat and fish populations C2 - Develop fish distribution models 2005 $50,000
3. Patterns of hybridization in brook/bull and cutthroat/rainbow trout 4. Pathways of invasion as indicated by patterns of among- and within-population genetic variation in brook trout A3 - Collect genetic samples B3 - Assay samples using PINE-PCR C3 - Describe distribution of hybrids D3 - Analyze patterns A4 - Collect genetic samples B4 - Assay samples using microsatellites C4 - Describe genetic patterns D4 - Analyze spatial patterns 2005 $5,000 Yes
ALL RMRS overhead na $9,900
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Broad-scale analysis of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution 2003 2005 $50,000
2. Multi-scale field study of species status and distribution 2003 2005 $322,000
3. Patterns of hybridization in brook/bull and cutthroat/rainbow trout 2003 2005 $210,000
4. Pathways of invasion as indicated by patterns of among- and within-population genetic variation in brook trout 2003 2005 $50,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$303,000$309,000$80,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: Postdoctoral scientist (cost to govt.) $30,000
Fringe Included above $0
Supplies Field supplies, GPS, electrofishing equip. $16,000
Travel Plane, vehicle, lodging, per diem $4,000
Indirect RMRS overhead = 18% $9,900
Subcontractor Genetic analysis $5,000
$64,900
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$64,900
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$64,900
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
RMRS Principal investigators, RMRS (12 pay periods) $33,000 cash
RMRS Biologist salary, RMRS (8 pay periods) $18,600 cash
RMRS Computer hardware, software, maint. $7,500 in-kind
RMRS Office space and administrative support $13,400 in-kind
Other budget explanation

Costs for out year budgets include 18% RMRS overhead. Cost-sharing is a minimum estimate for single-year costs only


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:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to develop a series of models to examine causes of non-native trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins and to look at genetic impacts (brook trout hybridization) and ecological impacts. It is a well-written proposal by highly qualified scientists that nicely characterizes the current situation regarding the issue of nonnative trout. Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the issue is important and urgent. However, neither the proposal nor the presentation convinced reviewers that at the end of the proposed project in 2006, fishery and land managers would be better able to make decisions regarding steps best taken to rectify the situation. To justify FWP funding the response should make stronger ties between possible results and management options. Work proposed as objective 1, to describe broad-scale patterns of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution, would produce some "preliminary predictive models" but the proposal contained no further detail and did not put that effort in the context of currently available models. Please clarify.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Reviewers suggest that benefits from this project will persist over the long-term only if the results/recommendations can be applied in a management scenario. Presently, there is little collaboration with the management agencies (i.e., this research was not sought by the managers). The managers acknowledge that the proposal is well written; however, the proposed work appears innovative and should be submitted for funding through the Innovative Project process. Project addresses RPAs 152 and 183.

The project is designed to investigate the ecological and genetic impacts of nonnative trout invasions at various spatial scales in the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins. The multi-spatial scale approach by the sponsors could provide comprehensive information on the dynamics of trout invasions.

The RFC agrees with the broad-scale modeling approach (i.e., data collection and analysis) of Phase 1 of the study and strongly encourage the sponsor to coordinate in a more deliberate fashion with other agencies and ongoing efforts in the North Fork Clearwater. In addition, the RFC suggests the sponsor should use available genetics information throughout the major study basins to reduce costs in Phase 3 of the study.

The RFC indicated that much of the data that would be collected as described within Table 1, Phase 1 and 2a (occurrence of non-natives and natives in watersheds and habitat/landscape characteristics) has been collected for the Clearwater National Forest. The RFC expressed concern relative to whether this project addresses the important issue. The RFC acknowledges that the science appears sound, but are unsure whether the results will have management implications? The most significant possibility of a project like this would be to develop models to help prioritize management alternatives (e.g., habitat restoration) that would benefit native species while not benefiting exotic species. The goals and objectives as stated in the proposal do not address this issue. The proposal should be rewritten to address management implications, and submitted through the innovative process. The RFC questions whether the BPA is the appropriate source of funding for the proposed work.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable (low priority). This is a proposal to develop a series of models to examine causes of non-native trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins and to look at genetic impacts (brook trout hybridization) and ecological impacts. It is a well-written proposal by highly qualified scientists that nicely characterizes the current situation regarding the issue of nonnative trout. Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the issue is important and urgent. However, neither the proposal (and response) nor the presentation convinced reviewers that at the end of the proposed project in 2006, fishery and land managers would be better able to make decisions regarding steps best taken to rectify the situation.

The author is encouraged to develop this approach more fully and submit future proposals. To justify FWP funding, the approach should make stronger ties between possible results and management options. Work proposed as objective 1, to describe broad-scale patterns of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution, would produce some "preliminary predictive models" but the proposal contained no further detail and did not put that effort in the context of currently available models.

The ISRP does not disagree that it is important to better understand the basic causes and patterns of nonnative trout invasions, in order to, in part, predict the course of those invasions yet to occur. However, the panel feels that it is more appropriate that the limited Bonneville resources available be used to effect a reversal of the existing legacy of invasions, and that our current understanding, while admittedly incomplete, is adequate to begin those efforts.

The ISRP fully concurs with CBFWA review comments.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Improve management decisions for non-native trout species by assessing potential ecological and genetic impacts non-native species have on native salmonids in the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins. Very broad and comprehensive approach - will produce a more complete understanding of native and non-native fish interactions.

Comments
This is a well-written proposal that outlines a worthwhile study on the effects of non-native salmonids on the ecology and genetics of native salmonids. Two minor concerns; 1) With only one year to fill in the gaps in the habitat data, there is no chance to pin down variability in the habitat variables in question, and 2) it is unclear if the study will address interspecific interactions and/or spatial overlap across different age classes. However, the merits of this proposal supersede those concerns, and the PI's seem more than capable of addressing the second concern.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed and roles and responsibilities among federal agencies for conducting research has been resolved.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
152, 183


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: