FY 1999 proposal 199501600
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 |
|---|---|
| 199501600 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Genetic Inventory of Westslope Cutthroat Trout, North Fork Clearwater Basin |
| Proposal ID | 199501600 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dana Weigel |
| Mailing address | 3404 Hwy. 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084769502 / weigeld@clearwater.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Document the extent of hybridization among native westslope cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout, and evaluate the effects of Dworshak resident fish mitigation on native trout in the North Fork Clearwater basin. |
| Target species | westslope cutthroat 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 |
|---|
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 | $138,900 | |
| Fringe | $40,000 | |
| Supplies | $6,000 | |
| Operating | $17,000 | |
| Travel | $8,000 | |
| Indirect | $62,100 | |
| Subcontractor | $18,000 | |
| $290,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $290,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $290,000 |
| 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: Problems finding suitable, genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout broodstock, and/or successfully adapting the broodstock to the hatchery may delay completion of the broodstock development objective.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable if funds available
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: Previous studies showed that hybridization with exotic trout was the greatest threat to the conservation of native westslope cutthroat trout. Rainbow trout are not a primary fishery in the basin. Funding for this project began in 1995. During the first year we conducted background studies, set up the genetics studies and collected the reference samples. This study asks 4 basic questions: 1) Is there any genetic introgression? 2) Are there any morphological characteristics useful for field identification (how can you tell a rainbow trout from a cutthroat trout)? 3) What is the correlation between habitat and the distribution of the species? 4) What are the catch rates (creel surveys)? The project also includes bull trout work (including a genetics-based look at bull trout/brook trout hybrids). If the kokanee population flourishes, the Tribe may introduce a predator (bull trout?).Questions/Answers:
Explain the long-term budget. Is it to inventory genetically pure fish? To stop stocking rainbow? To develop a pure westslope cutthroat trout brood stock? Answer: The increase in funding is related to broodstock development. Is brood stock development a Council Measure? Answer: We are planning ahead. We have enough information to know that we have a significant introgression problem. Broodstock development is a natural outgrowth of a genetic inventory, but it will still have to be approved by the Council.
The initial project was to last 2-3 years at $100,000. The project seems to have drifted. What is the clear link to a Council Measure? Answer: The original measure arose from a report that identified the need to evaluate introgression potentially resulting form rainbow trout stocking in Dworshak Reservoir. The Tribe is now showing that introgression is a problem. The Corps has sole mitigation responsibility and currently raises rainbow trout but it could shift to cutthroat trout.
Comment: Since cutthroat trout are the most "at-risk" native trout, can't we just tell the Corps to stop producing rainbow trout and develop cutthroat trout broodstock instead?
Comment: The idea of cutthroat trout broodstock needs more work, some of the co-managers are not comfortable with it.
Would this stocking be for population maintenance or for a consumptive fishery? Answer: It depends on the goal -- recovery versus harvest. There could be some consumptive use.
Do you have genetically pure fish? Answer: Yes, we used non-coded DNA sequences. Comment: Non-coded DNA sequences can change too fast to be useful.
Is this a Corps responsibility through the Reimbursable fund? Answer: We haven't looked into this.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes. The genetic inventory is excessive.
Programmatic Criteria: No. The project doesn't address enough of the criteria.
General Comment: The out year objectives are not based on work to date. If rainbow trout are a problem, stop stocking them.
Comment:
Bull trout tasks deletedComment:
The goal of this proposal appears to be to support a consumptive sports fishery. However, the project includes a genetic inventory, which would be valuable. The proposal suggests that the principal investigators intend to develop a genetically pure broodstock, but the justification for this is not well described or documented. The ISRP does not consider broodstock development or supplementation to be biologically supportable at this time. More must first be known about the fitness of fish in the wild. The proposal does not include a schedule that specifies actions that would result from various findings. These actions should include termination of the project if it does not look like it will be successful.