FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28007

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Costs for out year budgets include 18% RMRS overhead. Cost-sharing is a minimum estimate for single-year costs only

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comment:

The project is designed to investigate the ecological and genetic impacts of nonnative trout invasions at various spatial scales in the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins. The multi-spatial scale approach by the sponsors could provide comprehensive information on the dynamics of trout invasions.

The RFC agrees with the broad-scale modeling approach (i.e., data collection and analysis) of Phase 1 of the study and strongly encourage the sponsor to coordinate in a more deliberate fashion with other agencies and ongoing efforts in the North Fork Clearwater. In addition, the RFC suggests the sponsor should use available genetics information throughout the major study basins to reduce costs in Phase 3 of the study.

The RFC indicated that much of the data that would be collected as described within Table 1, Phase 1 and 2a (occurrence of non-natives and natives in watersheds and habitat/landscape characteristics) has been collected for the Clearwater National Forest. The RFC expressed concern relative to whether this project addresses the important issue. The RFC acknowledges that the science appears sound, but are unsure whether the results will have management implications? The most significant possibility of a project like this would be to develop models to help prioritize management alternatives (e.g., habitat restoration) that would benefit native species while not benefiting exotic species. The goals and objectives as stated in the proposal do not address this issue. The proposal should be rewritten to address management implications, and submitted through the innovative process. The RFC questions whether the BPA is the appropriate source of funding for the proposed work.

Comment:

The author is encouraged to develop this approach more fully and submit future proposals. To justify FWP funding, the approach should make stronger ties between possible results and management options. Work proposed as objective 1, to describe broad-scale patterns of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution, would produce some "preliminary predictive models" but the proposal contained no further detail and did not put that effort in the context of currently available models.

The ISRP does not disagree that it is important to better understand the basic causes and patterns of nonnative trout invasions, in order to, in part, predict the course of those invasions yet to occur. However, the panel feels that it is more appropriate that the limited Bonneville resources available be used to effect a reversal of the existing legacy of invasions, and that our current understanding, while admittedly incomplete, is adequate to begin those efforts.

The ISRP fully concurs with CBFWA review comments.

Comment:

Comments
This is a well-written proposal that outlines a worthwhile study on the effects of non-native salmonids on the ecology and genetics of native salmonids. Two minor concerns; 1) With only one year to fill in the gaps in the habitat data, there is no chance to pin down variability in the habitat variables in question, and 2) it is unclear if the study will address interspecific interactions and/or spatial overlap across different age classes. However, the merits of this proposal supersede those concerns, and the PI's seem more than capable of addressing the second concern.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
152, 183

Comment: