FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27017

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBull trout population assessment and life history characteristics in association with habitat quality and land use: template for recovery planning.
Proposal ID27017
OrganizationUtah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NamePhaedra E. Budy, Ph.D
Mailing addressDept. of Fish and Wildlife, Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5290
Phone / email4357977564 / phaedra.budy@cnr.usu.edu
Manager authorizing this projectPhaedra E. Budy
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Imnaha
Short descriptionAssess 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 speciesbull trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
NA, new project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Objectives 1-3 NEPA permitting, project planning and logistics 1 $5,600
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objectives 1-3 2003 2003 $5,600
Objectives 1-3 2004 2004 $5,600
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$5,600$5,600

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$10,388$10,388

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Pertains to all objectives and tasks, annual vehicle, lodging, and travel costs all tasks 1 $42,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$42,000$42,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$211,900$211,900

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

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


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 13, 2002

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.