FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27017
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 |
---|---|
27017 Narrative | Narrative |
27017 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
27017 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Blue Mountain: Imnaha Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Blue Mountain: Imnaha Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Letter from H. Schaller (USFWS) to Resident Fish Committee (CBFWA) Re: Support for resident fish projects in provincial review process | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Bull trout population assessment and life history characteristics in association with habitat quality and land use: template for recovery planning. |
Proposal ID | 27017 |
Organization | Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS (USGS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Phaedra E. Budy, Ph.D |
Mailing address | Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5290 |
Phone / email | 4357977564 / phaedra.budy@cnr.usu.edu |
Manager authorizing this project | Phaedra E. Budy |
Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Imnaha |
Short description | Assess bull trout population density, abundance and life history charateristics for core areas of the Imnaha Subbasin and evaluate relationships to habitat quality and land use based on field evalautions and mark/recapture techniques. |
Target species | bull trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
Imnaha Subbasin: Imnaha mainstem, Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and Lick Creek | ||
45.52 | -116.82 | Imnaha River |
45.5572 | -116.8347 | Big Sheep creek |
45.5202 | -116.8602 | Little Sheep Creek |
45.1983 | -117.0252 | Lick Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Habitat RPA Action 149 |
Habitat RPA Action 150 |
Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Habitat RPA Action 155 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
NA, new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199405400 | Characterize the Migratory Patterns, Structure, Abundance, and Status of Bull Trout Populations from Subbasins in the Columbia Plateau | complimentary |
IDFG General Parr Monitoring | provides information for | |
NWPPC Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment (EDT) | project data can be use to validate EDT model |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objectives 1-3 | NEPA permitting, project planning and logistics | 1 | $5,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objectives 1-3 | 2003 | 2003 | $5,600 |
Objectives 1-3 | 2004 | 2004 | $5,600 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$5,600 | $5,600 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Comprehensive bull trout population assessment and monitoring. | Task 1.1 Marking. | 1 | $18,200 | |
Task 1.2 Recapture. | 1 | $30,233 | ||
Objective 2. Comprehensive stream and riparian habitat assessment and monitoring. | Task 2.1 Habitat assessment. | 1 | $2,576 | |
Objective 3. Feasibility of innovative pass-through PIT tag monitoring system. | Task 3.1 Tagging, detection, and fish movement. | 1 | $70,742 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Comprehensive bull trout population assessment and monitoring. | 2003 | 2004 | $4,200 |
Objective 2. Comprehensive stream and riparian habitat assessment and monitoring. | 2003 | 2004 | $2,576 |
Objective 3. Feasibility of innovative pass-through PIT tag monitoring system. | 2003 | 2004 | $14,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$10,388 | $10,388 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pertains to all objectives and tasks, annual vehicle, lodging, and travel costs | all tasks | 1 | $42,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Pertains to all objectives and tasks, annual vehicle, lodging, and travel costs | 2003 | 2003 | $42,000 |
Pertains to all objectives and tasks, annual vehicle, lodging, and travel costs | 2004 | 2004 | $42,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$42,000 | $42,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Comprehensive bull trout population assessment and monitoring. | Task 1.1 Marking. | 1 | $35,840 | |
Task 1.2 Recapture. | 1 | $42,420 | ||
Task 1.3 Snorkel surveys for juvenile densities. | 1 | $19,390 | ||
Task 1.4 Adult and egg information, egg-to-parr survival. | 1 | $16,310 | ||
Objective 2. Comprehensive stream and riparian habitat assessment and monitoring. | Task 2.1 Habitat assessment. | 1 | $106,400 | Yes |
Objective 4. Data analysis. | Task 4.1 Analysis of mark/recapture data; population estimates and movement. | 1 | $10,920 | |
Task 4.2 Analysis of snorkel data: parr density and habitat use. | 1 | $10,920 | ||
Task 4.3 Analysis of adult and egg data: egg-to-parr survival. | 1 | $10,920 | ||
Task 4.4 Analysis of habitat attributes in relation to fish survival and density. | 1 | $10,920 | ||
Objective 5. Summarizing available information into a simple population model. | Task 5.1 Assemble and summarize all existing bull trout population and life history data for the selected tributaries of the Imnaha sub-basin. | 1 | $9,100 | |
Task 5.2 Building the population life-cycle model. | 1 | $9,100 | ||
Objective 6. Describe current habitat conditions and land use patterns as they relate to bull trout survival and growth. | Task 6.1 Summarize and quantify all available habitat data. | 1 | $6,067 | |
Task 6.2 Exploring the relationship between habitat and bull trout population status indicators. | 1 | $6,067 | ||
Task 6.5 Model calibration and validation. | 1 | $6,067 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Comprehensive bull trout population assessment and monitoring. | 2003 | 2004 | $157,400 |
Objective 2. Comprehensive stream and riparian habitat assessment and monitoring.Objective 2. Comprehensive stream and riparian habitat assessment and monitoring. | 2003 | 2004 | $152,000 |
Objective 4. Data analysis.Objective 4. Data analysis. | 2003 | 2004 | $62,400 |
Objective 5. Summarizing available information into a simple population model. | 2003 | 2004 | $26,000 |
Objective 6. Describe current habitat conditions and land use patterns as they relate to bull trout survival and growth. | 2003 | 2004 | $26,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$211,900 | $211,900 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 4 | $109,000 |
Fringe | $13,650 | |
Supplies | $26,685 | |
Travel | $26,000 | |
Indirect | $132,626 | |
Capital | $65,530 | |
NEPA | $4,000 | |
PIT tags | # of tags: 3556 | $8,001 |
Subcontractor | USFS Habitat Assessment included here | $76,000 |
Other | expendible property | $8,300 |
$469,792 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $469,792 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $469,792 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
USGS | Principle Investigator Salary | $25,476 | in-kind |
USFWS | Co- Principle Investigator Salary | $16,249 | in-kind |
USFWS | Screw Trap | $15,000 | in-kind |
USFS | Co- Principle Investigator Salary | $10,833 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Response needed. Similar proposals were submitted by the sponsors for bull trout in Rapid River/Boulder Creek, Idaho, and in the Imnaha River, Oregon. One reason for the duplicate submission was to examine geographic differences. The ISRP concluded that these proposals would not provide a sound basis for understanding variability across the species' range. A suitable proposal for that part of the study should include a sample of populations that is representative of the species across its range. The ISRP also is concerned that a paired stream approach with limited replication has generally not been fruitful for populations of stream dwelling salmonids because of the abundance of confounding environmental factors. Reviewers felt the proposed study would provide some more basic bull trout data, but stops short of assessing critical limiting factors. Ten years ago gathering of basic data on bull trout was appropriate, but now it is time to test some elegant hypotheses and begin implementing recovery.The ISRP recommends that the study site be limited to either Rapid River/Boulder Creek, or the Imnaha River, and that a single proposal be developed as a pilot study to evaluate the proposed application of Pradel's ideas, and the PIT tag applications and detection methods to fluvial bull trout. The new proposal should include a discussion of why the effectiveness of a new PIT-tag system is necessary if it is already under evaluation elsewhere. The sponsors need to show full coordination of proposal development with research presently underway with fish habitat and bull trout at the site of choice.
Comment:
Although the results from the proposed work could prove useful to managers in other subbasins where bull trout populations are regarded as weak, the work is not needed in the Imnaha Subbasin. The sponsor's suggested the proposed work will provide information needed for recovery planning. The managers characterize the bull trout population in the Imnaha as "strong," Although the sponsor suggested there were discussion with ODFW personnel, reviewers suggest some of the sponsor's rational for selecting the Imnaha illustrates a lack of thorough discussion/coordination with the regional managers. The regional managers suggested sufficient data exists for the management/preservation of this bull trout population which is considered strong. The reviewers acknowledge that the proposal is well written by a group of highly respected researchers and as a result suggest that proposal should be submitted for consideration through another Province or process (e.g., Innovative Project process).This USFWS suggests that this proposal was designed to develop techniques to assess recovery planning and provide information for implementing the biological opinion. The proposed work would assess bull trout population density, abundance, and life history characteristics for core areas of the Imnaha Subbasin and evaluate relationships to habitat quality and land use based on field evaluations and mark/recapture techniques. The USFWS suggests the proposed work would "also provide the technical information to develop a template for bull trout recovery planning." The USFWS indicated that the proposed work is "needed to evaluate population response to recovery measures within and outside of the tributaries." According to the USFWS, the proposed work would help implement reasonable and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 11.1, 11.2. and 11.A.2.2.b in the FCRPS biological opinion.
The USFWS views the proposed work "as an extremely important project for assisting in determining bull trout population status and habitat conditions" and believes there is a "need to systematically collect critical tributary information on bull trout to help in assessing the effects of FCRPS operation." The USFWS supports the funding of this proposal.
Comment:
Fundable in part. A related proposal (28014) from the same sponsors in the Salmon subbasin was withdrawn. Reduction to a pilot-study on one Imnaha tributary is recommended. In this, the sponsor can test and develop methods to give greater assurance of a sound, full-scale study in the long run. In particular, the Pradel mark-recapture method, which apparently has never before been applied to fish, should be pilot-tested using the single tributary's replicate study areas. The detection of pit tags with the new detector apparatus can also be tested in that tributary; the results should yield insight into interpretation of data for determining fish movement and habitat use. Also appropriate for pilot study would be the validation of redd count methodology by mark recapture estimates and/or other procedures.The statistical design presented via proposal and responses was not deemed adequate to evaluate critical limiting habitat factors. The movements important in metapopulation dynamics are not likely to be defined via the methods proposed and during a study of only three years' duration. The response to questions about replication is still confusing. One problem is that there is no indication of the sizes (stream lengths) of the 5 study areas that would constitute the replicates within each tributary stream. It is very important that these each be of adequate length, taking into consideration such factors as channel width, diversity and spacing of channel forms and features, "home range size" of the target fishes (encompassing routine day-to-day movements), and seasonal changes in habitat use by the fish. The sponsor has not discussed this or even presented any idea of appropriate replicate length. Determination of appropriate replicate lengths could be an objective in the pilot study.
The objective of determining survival rates will be difficult, and trying to correlate survival and other population parameters with habitat variables will be even more problematic. Basically, the within-stream replicates cannot be independent with regard to the fish population while the fish are moving significantly, so paired comparisons would be tenuous. The reviewers agree that the envisaged basic information on relationships between bull trout and their habitat is indeed needed (and future proposals could use the results from this project to develop a watershed assessment), but at this point pilot study is required to better work out the procedures for making such determinations in this stream system.
A further concern is that the sponsor did not clearly state the extent to which habitat study sites (the replicates) would be colocated with the population sampling sites. Some reviewers assumed they would be identical (and some of the above comments are predicated on that), but others questioned the situation. This might be clarified simply and quickly with Council staff and BPA contract officers if the project is funded.
In regard to the original, multi-stream design, habitat variables, sites within streams probably will be more correlated with each other than with sites in different streams. Analysis of data from this segment of the project will require a hierarchical analysis or demonstration that the sites are more or less independent. Another problem is that the Imnaha system contains a relatively narrow range of land uses. Therefore, the prospects for relating bull trout survival and growth to land use patterns (Objective 6) may not be a good in this basin as in some others. On the other hand, perhaps it will be best to conduct the pilot study here where land use patterns are not complex.
The proponents should use a probabilistic procedure for selecting some if not all of the study sites. The ISRP strongly recommends that they select sites using the "Oregon Plan" as a model. See the proposals, ISRP reviews, and proponent responses for fish, habitat, and water quality monitoring in the Salmon subbasin (199107300, 199405000, and 28051). Also, see the Council's draft recommendations on monitoring in the John Day of the Columbia Plateau Province (199801600). The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
In responding to the ISRP suggestion that (in addition to the project's quest for baseline data) testing of more elegant hypotheses than those embodied in the proposal is needed to facilitate bull trout recovery, the sponsor wrote that the project would be testing hypotheses but did not specify what they would be.
Given the number of areas in which ODFW and USGS projects on bull trout would be complementary, the PIs of both projects should develop an explicit coordination mechanism to ensure continuing collaboration and avoid duplication. The response lists several areas in which there is potential gain from collaboration; all are described as possible, but only hypothetically. Before funding, the PIs need to describe the means by which data collection will be coordinated, shared, and formatted in compatible ways so that each project's analysis benefits from the other.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend funding at this time. Actions proposed are not described by any RPM. Most, if not all of this work, is in tributaries and not in the mainstem. This project could be reviewed after Subbasin Planning is completed. (Note that the Action Agencies and USFWS are discussing their differences with regard to the scope of the USFWS 2000 FCRPS BiOp.) BPA RPA RPM:
Not BiOp related
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
USFWS BiOp Related
Comment:
Council Recommendation:The US Fish and Wildlife Service project proposes new work to assess bull trout population density, abundance and life history characteristics in the Imnaha. The ISRP viewed the work as largely experimental in nature to test and develop methods of stock assessments never tried on bull trout populations. The nature of these new methods warranted a pilot study approach according to ISRP and they gave the project a Fundable In Part recommendation to proceed testing methodologies on one tributary rather than the four tributaries proposed in the project.
Bonneville rated the proposal as not fundable at this time, stating the actions proposed did not relate to a specific RPM in the USFWS Biological Opinion on Bull Trout and that "Most, if not all of this work, is in the tributaries and not the mainstem." The Fish and Wildlife Service commented in a letter to the Council that the project "will help implement reasonable and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 11.1 and 11.A.3.1.a-f in the FCRPS BO." Those aspects of the Biological Opinion relate to the use of the Lower Snake reservoirs by bull trout and the counting and determining presence and size of populations of bull trout in the four Lower Snake reservoirs.
As discussed in the general issue on bull trout projects, the Council recognizes the apparent dispute between the Service and Bonneville on the implementation of the Biological Opinion on bull trout. We would prioritize the work proposed in this new project as an element of the fish and wildlife program responsibilities, leaving for the discussions between the Service, Bonneville, the Council and other interested parties the ultimate implementation of the bull trout Biological Opinion. The Council agrees with the ISRP that the project should be limited to a pilot study to determine the effectiveness of its assessment methodologies and approaches. Thus, as presented in the budget tables, we significantly reduce the proposed budget to a pilot study scale.
Keeping in line with Council policy to disfavor additional substantial assessment work prior to subbasin planning, the Council would recommend not funding Construction/Implementation task 2.1 and Monitoring and Evaluation task 2.1. The Council would recommend funding the other proposed tasks, but keeping the scale of the study confined to one creek, rather than the four proposed by the project sponsors.
Comment:
Do not fund at this time. Project should await review after the bull trout recovery plan and subbasin planning are completed. At that time a regional forum should be convened to develop projects to meet the bull trout recovery plan goals. In addition the projects relationship to the FCRPS's responsibility for bull trout/resident fish mitigation has not been established. This project is part of a significant growth in bull trout or resident fish projects/proposals budgets that should not be undertaken at this time.