FY 1999 proposal 199201000

Additional documents

TitleType
199201000 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHabitat Restoration/Enhancement Fort Hall Reservation
Proposal ID199201000
OrganizationShoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid C. Moser
Mailing addressShoshone-Bannock Tribes, P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203
Phone / email2082383761 / salmon@nicoh.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Snake
Short descriptionProvide conditions to maintain a self-perpetuating tribal subsistence and trophy trout fishery. Provide conditions and seed stock to re-establish native cutthroat trout runs in bottoms and mountain stream tributaries.
Target speciesYellowstone cutthroat trout Contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native populations. Rainbow trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9500600 Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone-Paiute joint culture facility Will provide seed stock to re-establish native Yellowstone cutthroat to restored streams

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel Biologist Program Manager, Biologist (partial), Field Biologist (partial), Technician, Secretary $54,000
Fringe 34% of Salarys $18,360
Supplies Field Supplies, Office Supplies, Gas & Oil) $3,200
Operating Equipment Maintenance (i.e electrofishers, generators, vehicles) $3,000
Capital Buck and rail fencing $20,000
Travel Professional society meetings, workshops $4,000
Indirect 28% of Salary and Fringe $20,261
Subcontractor Salmon Corps; University of Montana $65,000
Other $4,927
Other $4,927
$197,675
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$197,675
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$197,675
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The goal of this project is to provide good habitat to support a self-sustaining native cutthroat trout population. It began in 1992, focuses on low cost / low tech stream restoration, and includes riparian fencing, instream structures and willow plantings. The Tribe has been successful in increasing the density of spawning and rearing trout. The budget includes $60,000 for genetics work on Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Fish from the Joint Culture Facility (9500600) will be used for supplementation.

Questions/Answers:

Biologs are really expensive. Upstream barbs are all that is needed to direct the current away from the bar. Response: We have put in woody debris to trap silt and provide cover for fish. We haven't seen fry in areas where we haven't enhanced the habitat.

The $60,000 for processing genetic samples seems high. Response: This would be the maximum amount. The price includes field work. We may sample 15-20 fish per stream but we don't have to do every stream. We are trying to pick up different populations.

Do you see genetic introgression? Answer: There may be pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the mountains and in some streams. In the major streams, such as Spring Creek, there are virtually no cutthroat trout without hybridization. The hybridization rate is anywhere from 10-90%.

Does Objective 4 (deter and reduce non-game fish) include native and non-native fish? Does it lead to a diverse community and a healthy stream ecosystem that fish will self- stock? Answer: We are still considering the options, we could use Yellowstone cutthroat trout. We haven't removed rainbow trout yet.

The restoration work began in 1992. What will ensure longevity of restoration actions? Answer: Most of the work has been fencing to protect against grazing. We can't do much about flooding. Are you attempting to change livestock practices? Yes. We are trying rotational grazing schemes, etc.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Some of the genetics tasks were deferred until 2000
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is diffuse and confusing, with many unjustified projects and methods. The habitat restoration portion of the proposal is well written and well justified, and past efforts appear to be successful; however, the supplementation portion of the project, intended to create a subsistence and trophy fishery, is not technically justified. The proposal indicates that the project has been successful in exposing spawning gravels and that native Yellowstone cutthroat trout remain in the stream (p. 5); thus, the fish population should regenerate without supplementation with hatchery fish. The planned supplementation seems to involve the idea of diluting away the genetic introgression in the Yellowstone cutthroat stock by injecting gametes from a pure strain at the rate of 20-30% per year. No genetic staff is shown, and no genetic basis for this plan is given. There is not support for the genetically pure broodstock methods on which the proposed work relies. The goal of deterring non-game fish species also should be viewed cautiously. Additionally, some of the study methods are inappropriate or poorly chosen. For example, Mesa and Schreck (1989) did not advocate using a "modified single-pass method" of electrofishing for population estimates to reduce injury, and the Shannon-Weaver diversity index probably cannot be equated with "invertebrate community health," as the proposal implies. A more aggressive and clear-cut grazing scheme is needed. Literature review on results of habitat work is too skimpy.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$179,000 $179,000 $179,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website