FY 1999 proposal 199405400

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
199405400 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Bull Trout Genetics, Habitat Needs, L.H. Etc. in Central and N.E. Oregon
Proposal ID	199405400
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	David V. Buchanan
Mailing address	28655 Hwy. 34 Corvallis, OR 97333
Phone / email	5417574263 / buchanand@fsl.orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes, John Day, Grande Ronde, Umatilla...
Short description	Provide essential scientific information for the protection, management and recovery of bull trout populations in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest..
Target species	bull 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
9202604	Spring Chinook Early Life History Study	They provide information on bull trout encountered in sampling and capture fish for tagging.
940400	Willamette Bull Trout Study	They aid sampling for genetics, and participate in information exchange
8810808	STREAMNET	We provide information and maps for website and database.

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		$118,300
Fringe	at 36%	$42,587
Supplies		$11,840
Operating		$3,950
Travel		$25,208
Indirect	at 22.9%	$46,232
Subcontractor	Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; USDA, Forest Service; University of Montana	$91,400
		$339,517

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$339,517
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$339,517
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None known

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Fundable

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The goal of this cooperative project between ODFW, the Warm Springs Tribe and the Forest Service is to protect and restore bull trout. Over harvest may be a factor. The plan is to complete the project in 2001. So far, we have sampled 46 populations for nuclear DNA analysis; looked at historic and current distribution and status; conducted a distribution and habitat survey of bull trout-brook trout hybrids; collected bull trout spawning data in three watersheds to establish guidelines for determining abundance; radio-tagged bull trout to determine movement; determined the relationship between fish size and injuries caused by electrofishing; looked a macro invertebrates in two streams in different subbasins; looked at foraging behaviors; and collected temperature data on two streams.

Questions/Answers:

How many bull trout will you tag? What percent of the population? Answer: 15-20 of adults in 3 streams. A total of 50 over several years.

There is a concern about tagging potentially spawning fish? Response: There is low mortality associated with tagging. It doesn't seem to adversely affect spawning. We are seeing a lot of movement. We are tagging fewer adults in Mill Creek because of the smaller population

Have you completed the first two objectives? Answer: We have completed the genetics work but we may revisit the 1997 Spruell and Allendorf work. Objective 2 is ongoing. The radio-tag work will continue but the historic and current distribution studies are complete. The migratory work will continue into 2000.

For objective 5 (sympatry work, invertebrate survey), how does the continuing work build on the title in bibliography? Answer: This is ongoing work and we have a graduate student working on the reporting.

This project has a sunset date of 2001. How will the scope and/or budget change if bull trout are listed? Answer: A listing shouldn't affect our ability to do the work. A steering committee keeps up with listing decisions and feedback from the Fish and Wildlife Service suggests a listing shouldn't be a problem. If additional work is needed, we would write a new proposal.

How has the funding been distributed from 94 to the present? Answer: This is a cooperative project and the distribution changes with the level of funding. In the early years it was mostly Oregon, now Tribal money is used on their lands. The USFS work is sub-contracted.

Is this an anadromous fish project? Answer: No, bull trout are resident fish. There are still some trout in the Hood River basin.

In shared watersheds bull trout are nuisance predators of salmon and steelhead. Response: Our approach is ecological. Bull trout spawn and rear above salmon and steelhead runs, are an upper-level predator, and indicate the health of the system.

Mill Creek is tributary to the Walla Walla. What do you do to coordinate activities with WDFW? Answer: We work closely with WDFW and the USFS since the upper portion of Mill Creek is on USFS land.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes. There is a lack of technical coordination with CTUIR.

General Comment: More passive methods should be used to gain information without disturbing populations.

Comprehensive projects like this should be encouraged in program.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a good study that will help define the bull trout problem (ranked in the top 10 of the set). The proposal’s strengths are excellent objectives and tasks, good methods and approach, and evidence of a strong collaborative effort with other agencies and groups. Progress to date is given somewhat generally, although publications are referenced. The schedule is ambitious, but they seem to be keeping up. The WDFW bull trout assessment proposals (9033 and 9055) should be coordinated with this work.

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:
$490,750	$490,750	$490,750

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website