FY 2000 proposal 199405300

Additional documents

TitleType
199405300 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBull Trout Assessment - Willamette/McKenzie
Proposal ID199405300
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJeff Ziller
Mailing address3150 Main Street Springfield, OR 97478
Phone / email5417263515 / Jeffrey.S.Ziller@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Willamette
Short descriptionMonitor distribution, population trends, and habitat use of bull trout populations in the Upper Willamette Basin. Continue to implement the Rehabilitation Plan for bull trout in Middle Fork Willamette (ODFW 1997).
Target speciesBull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
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
1996 Over 100 miles of stream have been surveyed for presence of bull trout. Young of the year bull trout have only been found in known spawning tributaries.
1998 Redd surveys conducted in Anderson and Olallie creeks and the mainstem McKenzie show an increasing trend in adult bull trout abundance.
1998 With a downstream migrant trap, we monitored of timing and numbers of juveniles moving downstream in Anderson Creek. Data indicates good spawning success; however, habitat for young of the year bull trout may be limited.
1998 Monitoring of radio transmitters implanted in bull trout has allowed us to describe seasonal movements and habitat use in mainstem McKenzie, South Fork McKenzie, and Cougar Reservoir.
1997 Information collected on this project has allowed ODFW to complete a risk assessment, rehabilitation plan and monitoring program for bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette River.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9206800 McKenzie Watershed Council Coordination Coordinates McKenzie Watershed Council administration, project planning, implementation and monitoring among multiple stakeholders/landowners. The proposed project would be guided by the ongoing McKenzie Watershed Council framework.
9206800 Assess Mckenzie Watershed Habitat And Prioritize Projects Assesses McKenzie Watershed habitat by synthesizing recent watershed analyses and gathering data to address information gaps. The project will provide a basin-wide context for bull trout habitat protection, restoration and monitoring strategies.
9405400 Bull trout genetics, habitat needs, life history in Central and NE Oregon Both are Columbia River Basin bull trout studies. 9405300 targets Willamette Subbasin populations 9405400 targets subbasins in Eastern Oregon.
9206800 Willamette Basin Mitigation Program, Phase III, Wildlife
9705907 Securing Mitigation Sites in Oregon - EE Wilson WMA Additions
9107800 Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project
20550 Willamette Basin Mitigation Program Umbrella
9705906 Securing Mitigation Sites in Oregon - McKenzie River Islands

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Experimental Biology Aide, 15 FTE months $24,081
Fringe $12,041
Supplies Gloves, wading boots, waders, flashlights, 2 dry suits, 5 radio tags and office supplies $3,300
Travel Mileage, vehicle rental and per diem $4,560
Indirect Overhead $15,258
$59,240
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$59,240
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$59,240
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
ODFW Personnel $24,997 unknown
US Forest Service Personnel $26,175 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: No constraints are forseen


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund with high priority
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund with high priority. The project is also recommended for a multi-year review cycle through 2002.

Comments: This is regarded as a good research proposal on a significant issue affecting bull trout over the species' entire range, existing and potential, in both river basins. The proposed budget is considered modest and well justified. One can gauge that not until critical data are assembled will it be possible to assess where, how and whether bull trout populations can be successfully restored. It would be helpful if this and other proposals would outline how this goal is to be achieved. Here, however, there is no information indicating coordination with other BPA-supported work on the species.

Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are: Notwithstanding objectives that are generally clearly stated and relevant to goals, an exception is Objective No. 5. It proposes to determine the effectiveness of restrictive angling regulations in maintaining bull trout populations. The methods listed in the proposal do not seem capable of making that determination. Over all, the methods are incorporated by reference ("same methods as in previous years"), so it is difficult to judge their adequacy.

The authors do not address potential adverse side effects involved in transplanting bull trout. The risk assessment referenced in Objective 4 (page 16) may apply, but further explanation is desired. Some of the null hypotheses (pages 15-16) are not as clearly stated as one might wish. They will require some re-working in order to match particular field activities with tests of hypotheses. For example, the null hypothesis for Objective No. 5 (Page 16) should be expressed in a form more directly able to be tested. Several null hypotheses perhaps should be generated for this objective.

Reintroduction into the Middle Fork of the Willamette should be closely monitored. That seems to be the authors' intent, but there is minimal discussion of the numbers proposed for this action, which began in February 1998. This issue should be given greater discussion, both in terms of genetic and ecological criteria. The proposal apparently does not discuss potential adverse effects of transplanting bull trout in the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. Do other species of fish reside in that reach, and might they be impacted?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- This is an assessment based project. No milestones were identified.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]