FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28030
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 |
|---|---|
| 28030 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28030 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28030 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Salmon River Native Resident Fish Assessment |
| Proposal ID | 28030 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kimberly A. Apperson |
| Mailing address | 555 Deinhard Lane McCall, Idaho 83638 |
| Phone / email | 2086348137 / kapperso@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Charles Corsi |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Investigate population status and trends, life histories, habitat needs, limiting factors, and threats to persistence of all resident native fishes in the Salmon River Subbasin. Emphasis of work will be on salmonid fishes. |
| Target species | bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, mountain whitefish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.45 | -115.76 | Salmon River Drainage, entire |
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 |
|---|---|
| none, new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199005500 | Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers | Resident fish information collected incidental to project tasks will be incorporated into assessment and database |
| 199107300 | Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project | Resident fish information collected incidental to project tasks will be incorporated into assessment and database. |
| 198909800 | Idaho Supplementation Studies | Resident fish information collected incidental to project tasks will be incorporated into assessment and database. |
| 199405000 | Salmon River Enhancement Monitoring and Evaluation | Resident fish information collected incidental to project tasks will be incorporated into assessment and database. |
| 98002 | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment | Project design will be used as a template for this project |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Develop spatial and temporal design to conduct assessment surveys, and to manage resulting data. | Task a. Review existing databases and literature to identify gaps in documented species distribution,status, and associated habitat conditions for target species. | 1 | $25,000 | |
| Objective 1. | Task b. Coordinate with leaders of ongoing related projects and land managers to assure assessment will compliment their activities, and to obtain advise regarding assessment design. | 1 | $25,000 | |
| Objective 1. | Task c. Use results from tasks a and b to develop a detailed workplan for FY2002 - 2006. | 1 | $6,000 | |
| Objective 1 | Task d. Use results from tasks a and b to develop a database structure, or choose existing database to contribute survey data to. | 1 | $6,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 3. Coordinate annually or more frequently with related project leaders and land managers to assure compatibility of assessment with other projects | 2003 | 2006 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 4. Implement fish population and habitat surveys as outlined in workplan | Task a. Use primarily snorkeling and electrofishing; and secondarily trapping and angling, to document species distribution and abundance by 6th HUC watersheds. | 5 | $82,000 | |
| Objective 4. | Task b. Identify, describe, and measure habitat characteristics in streams surveyed under Task a. | 5 | $78,000 | |
| Objective 5. Communicate results of surveys. | Task a. Prepare annual reports, manage database. | 6 | $17,000 | |
| Objective 5. | Task b. Participate in annual interagency coordination meetings, and present findings at professional society meetings | 6 | $11,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 4. | 2002 | 2005 | $510,000 |
| Objective 5. | 2003 | 2006 | $195,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $185,000 | $185,000 | $185,000 | $150,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 6. Develop long-term spatial and temporal strategy to monitor trends in population distributions and abundances throughout the Salmon Subbasin | Task a. Apply predictive modeling tools, coordinated with other project leaders to develop strategy. | 1 | $0 | |
| Objective 6. | Task b. Develop long-term annual work plans, and conduct monitoring | 10 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 6 | 2006 | 2016 | $1,000,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2006 |
|---|
| $35,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Biologist, seasonal crew | $100,000 |
| Fringe | $36,500 | |
| Supplies | survey equipment, data management software and hardware, misc. supplies | $26,750 |
| Travel | coordination, professional meetings, field work, vehicle rental | $30,000 |
| Indirect | $56,750 | |
| $250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $250,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Department of Fish and Game | supervision, field and technical assistance | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Payette National Forest | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Boise National Forest | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $25,000 | in-kind |
| Salmon-Challis National Forest | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Sawtooth National Forest | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $2,000 | in-kind |
| Nez Perce National Forest | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $2,000 | in-kind |
| Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Bureau of Land Management, Salmon Office | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $0 | in-kind |
| Bureau of Land Management, Challis Office | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $0 | in-kind |
| Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood Field Office | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Alberston College Museum of Natural History | fish identification assistance, data sharing | $3,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | coordination, field assistance, data sharing | $5,000 | 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:
A response is needed. This is a new proposal by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to establish a position, develop a database structure, and conduct distribution and relative abundance estimates of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and non-game species in the Salmon River basin. The first objective is to review existing data to identify "data gaps." Subsequently, a detailed work plan would be developed to conduct surveys in FY02-FY06 to fill the data gaps. The long-term goal is to initiate a monitoring program to track the condition of these species.Reviewers acknowledge that there is a clear and long-recognized need for basic population information on resident native salmonid species, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout, and any data gathering should include non-native salmonids in some fashion. However, the panel is equally aware that the proposal's justification ("little current information exists on native resident fishes") is not compatible with the subbasin summary's discussion of more than 100 assessments completed to date. It is clear that better, not simply more, data are needed.
Because the proposal does not present a work plan, it is difficult for reviewers to be supportive of the proposal at this time. Once the detailed work plan is developed, a proposal could be developed around it and submitted for review at a future date.
The ISRP recommends that the proponents of the project work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the Columbia Plateau Province is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that can serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this report.
In particular, this proposal should show evidence of close cooperation with related proposals such as #28051 and #199107300 to ensure that plans for site selection and method for data collection are compatible. Data should be made available via STREAMNET.
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
High Priority (Obj 1) Recommended Action (all else)
Nov 30, 2001
Comment:
Objective 1 (plan) is recommended as high priority and the implementation phase should be funded pending the completion/review and coordination of all management groups in the proposed study area.Comment:
Not fundable. This is a new proposal by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to establish a position, develop a database structure, and conduct distribution and relative abundance estimates of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and non-game fish species in the Salmon River basin. The first objective is to review existing data to identify "data gaps." Subsequently, a detailed work plan would be developed to conduct surveys in FY02-FY06 to fill the data gaps. The long-term goal is to initiate a monitoring program to track the condition of these species.Reviewers acknowledge that there is a clear and long-recognized need for basic population information on resident native salmonid species, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout, and any data gathering should include non-native salmonids in some fashion. However, the panel is equally aware that the proposal's justification ("little current information exists on native resident fishes") is not compatible with the subbasin summary's discussion of more than 100 assessments completed to date. It is clear that better, not simply more, data are needed.
Because the proposal does not present a work plan, it is difficult for reviewers to be supportive of the proposal at this time. Once the detailed work plan is developed, a proposal should be developed around it and submitted for review at a future date.
The ISRP recommends that the proponents of the project work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the Columbia Plateau Province is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that can serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this report. The ISRP recommends that the proponents consider using data protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001).
Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp. Data should be made available via STREAMNET.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUNone for RPA ESUs. But still important basic research for resident fish.
Comments
The region needs a comprehensive monitoring program for resident fish. This is a good start, but should be combined with Oregon and Washington's efforts to do the same.
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend. BPA RPA RPM:
Not USFWS BiOp Related.
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment:
Council recommendation: The goal of this project is to provide a baseline for evaluating future land and species management actions relative to effects on native fishes and their habitats. This project proposes to: 1) complete knowledge base of current status of all native resident fishes at the 6th HUC watershed level across all land ownerships, 2) provide recommendations for the design of long-term monitoring of those populations, and 3) coordinate the development and maintenance of a Salmon Subbasin database usable by all agencies and tribes. The proposal would review and coordinate existing information on resident fishes distribution, status, and habitat associations, house that in a data base, and then develop a long-term monitoring and evaluation plan and design to track these parameters for target species.The project received a "do not fund" rating from the ISRP, and CBFWA rated only Objective 1 of the proposal as a high priority. The ISRP states that "there is a clear and long-recognized need for basic population information." However, the ISRP is critical that no work plan is presented. The Council's review of the proposal shows that the issue of a work plan is important for out-year funding of additional data collection. Bonneville's comments rated it a D and recommended against funding.
The Council recommendation is to fund only Objective 1 in Fiscal Year 2002 ($62,000) to compile, coordinate and lodge this resident fish information in a database. No out-year funding is recommended. The Council believes that funding Objective 1 responds to the ISRP's note that there is a "clear and long-recognized need for basic population information" on these species, and that the task within that objective are aimed at coordinating and improving existing data and making it more accessible, as opposed to gathering new data (which is proposed in the other Objectives not recommended). The Council believes that having this basic information will be useful for subbasin planning, and in particular, ground-truthing the EDT based work that has been developed to date. This is one of the few resident fish focused projects that the province prioritization group chose to advance for funding in the Mountain Snake province. The Council recommends that the sponsor be required to provide the coordinated population information to Streamnet.
Comment:
Do not fund at this time. We believe this proposed resident fish assessment is premature to the NPPC's subbasin planning project. In addition, Bonneville believes that this project may not be the responsibility of the FCRPS to mitigate for resident fish, including bull trout, in the Salmon subbasin. 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.Comment:
Not funded. BPA says defer to subbasin planning. Check in for 2005Comment: