FY 1999 proposal 199201000
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199201000 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Fort Hall Reservation |
| Proposal ID | 199201000 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David C. Moser |
| Mailing address | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203 |
| Phone / email | 2082383761 / salmon@nicoh.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Provide 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 species | Yellowstone cutthroat trout Contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native populations. Rainbow trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 1999 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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
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
Comment:
Some of the genetics tasks were deferred until 2000Comment:
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.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
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