FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28014
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 |
---|---|
28014 Narrative | Narrative |
28014 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
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 | 28014 |
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 | Mountain Snake |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
Short description | 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. |
Target species | bull trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
Little Salmon River: Rapid River, Boulder Creek and tributaries | ||
45.4168 | -116.3132 | Little Salmon River |
45.3745 | -116.3546 | Rapid River |
45.2042 | -116.31 | Boulder 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.Objective 2. | 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 | |
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 | 2003 | 2004 | $152,000 |
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 | $8,001 | |
Subcontractor | USFS Habitat Assessment included here | $76,000 |
Other | expendible | $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:
This proposal was not reviewed. Per the ISRP's request, the sponsors have resubmitted the proposal for review in just one subbasin (i.e., Imnaha Subbasin in the Blue Mountain Province (Proposal 27017)).Comment:
[Withdrawn]Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Important basic work for Bull Trout.
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Withdrawn from consideration. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment: