FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21003
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 |
|---|---|
| 21003 Narrative | Narrative |
| 21003 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Upper Columbia Subbasin Native Rainbow Population Study |
| Proposal ID | 21003 |
| Organization | Washington Trout (WT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Nick Gayeski |
| Mailing address | PO Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 |
| Phone / email | 4257881167 / nick@washingtontrout.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | ? |
| Review cycle | Intermountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Intermountain / Inter-Mountain |
| Short description | Evaluate structure, dynamics, and long-term viability of selected rainbow populations in Colville National Forest |
| Target species | Redband rainbow |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.74 | -118.35 | Colville National Forest |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Native Trout Survey, Yakima/Naches Basins; Final Report spring 2000 (see Part II, References) |
| 1999 | Native Trout Survey, Colville NF, DNA results pending; Final Report pending |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 200004800 | Yakima Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity | support |
| 199802600 | Native Trout survey, 1999 | support |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Select streams and Sites | a)Phone/email consultation with Tom Shuhda,Colville National Forest b) Review maps | 2001 | $625 | |
| Schedule Crew for Field Work | a)Phone/email contact Dr. Pat Trotter, Bill McMillan b) In-person meetings | 2001-2005 | $625 | |
| Order Equipment and Supplies | a) Assess equipment and supply needs and place orders | 2001-2005 | $625 | |
| Indirect Costs on subtotal of 1875 | $375 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2,250 | $2,250 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Census study populations at each site, July/August | a) set upstream and downstream block nets, conduct 2-3 pass electrochock removals b) take length and weight measurements of each fish collected c) flyfish each site one or two days prior to electroshocking; estimate length of fish caught. | $0 | ||
| 2.Conduct physical habitat measurements, during annual population census, July/August | a) Measure and describe select in-channel and riparian zone features | $0 | ||
| Objectives 1 and 2 combined | All Tasks | 5+ | $10,000 | |
| 3.Develop age and length data for each population. (Annual data analyses. See Objectives 6/7 for FY01 Cost Est.) | a) length data obtained during population census b) Consult literature, regional databases, and knowledgable individuals regarding comparable populations c) Take lethal samples during population censuses for otolith analyses | 5+ | $0 | |
| 3. Subcontract: | brook trout otolith analyses | 5+ | $2,000 | Yes |
| 4. Measure fish condition and growth, and develop related indices. See Objectives 6/7 for FY01 Cost est. | a) obtain length and weight data during annual censuses b) growth analyses of otoliths c) calculate Condition Factors using length and weight data d) develop length-at-age statistics for each population; estimate age-specific growth from this data. | 5+ | $0 | |
| 4 cont. | e) collect subsamples for whole body lipids analysis (in conjunction with collection for otolith analysis).(brook trout only FY2001 | 5+ | $0 | |
| 4. Subcontract: | brook trout lipids analyses | 5+ | $2,000 | Yes |
| 5a.Evaluate Feasibility of surveying rainbow spawning in study reaches, May/early June | a)Field visit sites May, June | 2 | $0 | |
| 5b.Obtain Rainbow spawning data, May/early June. (FY2001 Cost estimate includes both parts a and b, all applicable tasks. | a) spawning surveys, redd counts and/or b) estimate spawning start date, finish date, and peak time, each population c) subsample with electroshoking to determine presence of ripe fish | 5+ | $1,625 | |
| 5c. Obtain Brook Trout spawning data, October | a) spawning surveys, redd counts b) estimate spawning start date, finish date, and peak time, each population c) lethal samples for fecundity estimates | 5+ | $0 | |
| 5d. Estimate/determine age/fecundities of rainbow and brook trout | a) Consult literature, regional databases, and knowledgable individuals regarding comparable populations b) Subsequent to initial population censuses, collect lethal samples from some or all study populations (both species) during peak spawning periods; | $0 | ||
| 5d cont.(FY2001 Cost estimate includes brook trout only, parts c and d, all tasks) | b) cont. for rainbow, in conjunction with task c under 5b above. | 5+ | $875 | |
| Supplies, expendibles Objectives 1 - 5 | All Tasks | 5+ | $3,000 | |
| Travel Objectives 1 - 5 (mileage, food) | All Tasks | 5+ | $5,200 | |
| Indirect Costs All Objectives | All Tasks | 5+ | $7,100 | |
| 6. Develop age-structured population models, each population beginning Project year 1. | a) Using data aquired (objs. 1,3,&5), estimate means, variances and distribtions of age-specific parameters b) input parameter values into RAMAS Stage matrix population model | $0 | ||
| 7. a) Evaluate relationships between Land-use/habitat conditions (Obj. 2) and structure and dynamics of each population (Objs. 1,3,4, 5 and synthesis in 6). | a) statistical analyses of project specific and comparative regional data; b) hypothesis evaluation and comparison using Decision Theoretic techniques. | $0 | ||
| 7. b) Develop viability analyses/risk assessments for each (rainbow) population | $0 | |||
| Objectives 6 and 7 combined; data analysis, Project director and Dr. Trotter. | 5+ | $6,000 | ||
| Objectives 6 and 7, consultation on statsitical analysis, Lorraine Read. | 5+ | $4,800 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $42,600 | $43,500 | $44,500 | $46,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Planning and Field work @ $20/hr.; Data analysis @ $30/hr. | $16,300 |
| Fringe | 25% | $4,075 |
| Supplies | Preservatives, temp. loggers, field notebooks, etc. | $3,000 |
| Travel | 8800 miles @ 0.35/mi., and food | $5,200 |
| Indirect | 20% | $7,475 |
| Capital | None | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Lorraine Read; Flathead Lake Biological Stn. | $8,800 |
| $44,850 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $44,850 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $44,850 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS Colville National Forest | a) Backpack electroshocker | $0 | in-kind |
| b) Lodging | $2,500 | in-kind | |
| c) Field Assistance | $2,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Do not fund - no response required
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. Further ISRP response review is not warranted at this time. The idea is good and warrants a revised proposal in future years. The experimental design is not adequate for the objectives and the objectives are not focused on the key problems such as assessing the status (both in population and genetic terms) of the species, variability in their abundance among years, and habitat-related population variability. The proposal identifies a potential problem (interaction of brook trout with rainbow trout leading to reduced production of rainbow trout), but fails to address it, only to further study details of it. Proposers might refer to Hearn's 1987 review of salmonid species interactions in Fisheries 12(5):24-31. A stronger proposal with greater utility for U.S. Forest Service resource managers (but not with tribal resource managers because of the perceived value of brook trout there) would also be directed measures that could be taken to reduce the interactions of brook trout with rainbow trout. Instead, the proposal is aimed at very basic research such as studies of trout age structure, recruitment dynamics, hydrologic conditions, and channel dynamics.The main limitation with the study design (which may be unavoidable because of cost considerations) is the fact that there is only a sample size of six as far as some of the objectives of the study are concerned, and additionally those sites collectively are so small that reviewers estimate that only about 1% of the trout population would be sampled. As a result, one wonders what a significant difference between rainbow trout populations with and without brook trout (Section IA) might mean, particularly as the habitat conditions will confound comparisons and the criteria for selecting study streams are not defined. Differences between populations will be present. The extent to which these are meaningful in terms of the presence/absence of brook trout and other factors will be a matter of judgment only, and there is a high risk of generating a distorted view of abundance of various age groups. Reflecting the discussion during the Inter-Mountain presentations, the study could be made more valuable by expanding its scope in terms of treatment replications and examining more than just perceived optimal habitat types.
The study populations should also be characterized genetically, if this has not already been done. Also, it is important to know whether they are redband, rainbow, or a hybrid swarm, because this will likely affect the management priority given to the population. From the presentation, it seemed that some (but not all?) of the populations had already been screened genetically.
The proposal's inclusion of assessing flyfishing as a population estimation technique was not viewed favorably, because it is probably better to combine snorkeling with electrofishing, giving consideration to the use of unpulsed DC.
Comment:
T1-collection techniques/methods and design are problematicT4-data collecting exercise
T5-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented thus target species/indicator populations would not benefit from the work. However, results from the studies could lead to the development of M&E plans from which the species/populations could benefit
T6-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented. Until results are obtained through the assessment and an M&E plan is developed and implemented, it is unknown whether the long-term benefits will be realized.
M2-The proposed work is not associated with an urgent issue involving a listed (i.e., sensitive threatened, endangered) species. However, for many of the projects urgency does exist in the form of mitigation opportunities.
M3- Project does not directly promote/maintain sustainable and/or ecosystem processes or maintain desirable community diversity. However, data gathered through this project could be used for these purposes.
M5-Not consistent with all resource managers. The money would be more wisely spent rectifying problems associated with the interactions.
M6-Most results that would likely be gained from this project are already known.
FY 01 Budget Review Comments: DNF-methods are unlikely to meet objectives, research goals are basic and the numerous studies have been conducted to compare the statements, this proposal does not articulate what the need is for the data that would be gathered, we are unsure of what the question is that the author is asking
Comment:
Do not fund. Further ISRP response review was not warranted. The idea is good and warrants a revised proposal in future years. The experimental design is not adequate for the objectives and the objectives are not focused on the key problems such as assessing the status (both in population and genetic terms) of the species, variability in their abundance among years, and habitat-related population variability. The proposal identifies a potential problem (interaction of brook trout with rainbow trout leading to reduced production of rainbow trout), but fails to address it, only to further study details of it. Proposers might refer to Hearn's 1987 review of salmonid species interactions in Fisheries 12(5):24-31. A stronger proposal with greater utility for U.S. Forest Service resource managers (but not with tribal resource managers because of the perceived value of brook trout there) would also be directed measures that could be taken to reduce the interactions of brook trout with rainbow trout. Instead, the proposal is aimed at very basic research such as studies of trout age structure, recruitment dynamics, hydrologic conditions, and channel dynamics.The main limitation with the study design (which may be unavoidable because of cost considerations) is the fact that there is only a sample size of six as far as some of the objectives of the study are concerned, and additionally those sites collectively are so small that reviewers estimate that only about 1% of the trout population would be sampled. As a result, one wonders what a significant difference between rainbow trout populations with and without brook trout (Section IA) might mean, particularly as the habitat conditions will confound comparisons and the criteria for selecting study streams are not defined. Differences between populations will be present. The extent to which these are meaningful in terms of the presence/absence of brook trout and other factors will be a matter of judgment only, and there is a high risk of generating a distorted view of abundance of various age groups. Reflecting the discussion during the Inter-Mountain presentations, the study could be made more valuable by expanding its scope in terms of treatment replications and examining more than just perceived optimal habitat types.
The study populations should also be characterized genetically, if this has not already been done. Also, it is important to know whether they are redband, rainbow, or a hybrid swarm, because this will likely affect the management priority given to the population. From the presentation, it seemed that some (but not all?) of the populations had already been screened genetically.
The proposal's inclusion of assessing flyfishing as a population estimation technique was not viewed favorably, because it is probably better to combine snorkeling with electrofishing, giving consideration to the use of unpulsed DC.
Comment:
Comment: