FY07-09 proposal 200714100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Bull Trout Effective Population Size in Isolated Populations |
| Proposal ID | 200714100 |
| Organization | Columbia River Fisheries Program Office |
| Short description | Estimate population abundance, effective population size and within/among population genetic variability in isolated populations to provide emperical data toward defining minimum viable population size and restoration and recovery of bull trout. |
| Information transfer | Quarterly, annual and final reports will be provided to contracting agency to meet obligations of contract. Information will be disseminated to scientific community through agency final report, peer reviewed literature, and/or presentation at professional meetings. Updates and final results will be available to scientific community, general public and contracting agency through US Fish and Wildlife Service - Columbia River Fisheries Program Office web site. Resulting information can be used by managers to help identify minimum viable population objectives and limiting factors in continuing recovery planning and future monitoring efforts. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Michael Hudson | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Robert Haverkate | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Michael Hudson | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Michael Hudson | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Michael Hudson | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Michael Hudson | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Howard Schaller | USFWS-CRFPO | [email protected] |
| Paul Spruell | University of Montana | [email protected] |
| Timothy Whitesel | USFWS, CRFPO | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Blue Mountain / Imnaha
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Big Sheep Creek | Bull trout effective population size in isolated populations | ||
| Imnaha River | Bull trout effective population size in isolated populations | ||
| Little Sheep Creek | Bull trout effective population size in isolated populations | ||
| McCully Creek | Bull trout effective population size in isolated populations |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull TroutSection 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other: USFWS | NA | Bull trout recovery planning | The proposed work will provide empirical data that relates absolute abundances, effective population size and genetic diversity to minimum viable population size objectives. Limiting factors with respect to habitat and these bull trout population parameters will also be addressed. |
| Other: USFWS and various | NA | Recovery monitoring and evaluation technical workgroup | Resulting information can be used by the RMEG toward future monitoring efforts. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterize the habitat of each population | Characterize the habitat of Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek bull trout populations above WVIC. | Imnaha | 5D1. Determine life history requirements. 5D4. Compare weak and strong populations. |
| Determine connectivity among populations | Determine if juvenile and/or adult immigration and/or emigration is occurring in each of the populations and identify the source population. | Imnaha | 5B3. Determine the seasonal movement patterns of adult and sub-adult migratory trout. 5D1. Determine life history requirements. 5E3. Evaluate the population structure of bull trout in the recovery unit. |
| Determine effective population size | Determine effective population size for Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek bull trout populations above WVIC. | Imnaha | 5D4. Compare weak and strong populations. 5E1. Determine the consequences of genetic fragmentation and isolation. 5E3. Evaluate the population structure of bull trout in the recovery unit. |
| Determine genetic population structuring | Determine within and among population genetic variability for Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek. The upper Imnaha River will be used as a control population representing connectivity to the remainder of the basin. | Imnaha | 5D4. Compare weak and strong populations. 5E1. Determine the consequences of genetic fragmentation and isolation. 5E3. Evaluate the population structure of bull trout in the recovery unit. |
| Determine population abundance | Determine abundance of Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek bull trout populations above WVIC. | Imnaha | 5D4. Compare weak and strong populations. 5E1. Determine the consequences of genetic fragmentation and isolation. 5E3. Evaluate the population structure of bull trout in the recovery unit. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze bull trout movement among populations | Movement data will be determined from analysis of PIT tag antennae array interrogations. Electrofishing data will also be analyzed for evidence of movement between populations. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,800 |
|
Biological objectives Determine connectivity among populations |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Analyze PIT tag antennae array monitoring data Primary R, M, and E Type: Analyze electrofishing data |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze/Interpret demographic effective population size | Demographic estimation of effective population size will follow Hill (1972) and Nunney (1993). Population parameters that will be used to estimate effective population size will be sex ratio, adult life span, generation time, standardized variance in life span, and standardized variance in reproductive success. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,800 |
|
Biological objectives Determine effective population size |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze/interpret genetic analyses | Genetic variability with and among populations will be determined using an approach similar to Spruell et al. (2003). Microsatellite markers that have been developed for bull trout molecular analysis will be utilized to describe within and among population genetic variability. Genetic estimation of effective population size will follow Nielsen (1997). Using this maximum likelihood approach, effective population size can be estimated from microsatellite markers that will be utilized to achieve Objective 3. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,800 |
|
Biological objectives Determine effective population size Determine genetic population structuring |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Determine population genetic variability Primary R, M, and E Type: Estimate genetic effective population size |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze/Interpret habitat data | Methodology will follow Hankin and Reeves (1988). Habitat types will be identified as pool, riffle, and cascade habitats. Habitat characteristics surveyed will include substrate, width, depth, cover and riparian vegetation. The resulting dataset will be linked to estimated abundance for each stream and bull trout populations will be compared within and among habitat types for the Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek. The results will provide a comparison of relatively weak to relatively strong bull trout population characteristics. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,800 |
|
Biological objectives Characterize the habitat of each population |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate bull trout abundance | Bull trout abundance will be estimated in Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek and McCully Creek above the WVIC. Population sampling data will be analyzed using the most appropriate statistical approach for the ultimate sampling method employed. The most effective and efficient sampling approach will be used to estimate accurate and precise population abundances. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,800 |
|
Biological objectives Determine population abundance |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Generate population abundance estimate |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Conduct field and lab work to achieve objectives | Juveniles and adults will be captured in study streams during late summer electrofishing efforts. Up to 500 bull trout will be tagged annually with individually coded PIT tags (23 mm long, 3.84 mm diameter, 0.6 g) and released back into the general area of capture. Recaptured fish will be determined by scanning all captured bull trout for PIT tags. At this time, length, weight, and tissue samples will be collected from all fish. Tissue samples will be used for age analysis and genetic analysis. Monitoring of fish movements will begin immediately after initial release. Movements will be monitored through the year using this technology to confirm that movement between populations is not occurring or unidirectional. Effective population size will be estimated using demographic and genetic approaches. Using a multi-faceted approach will help identify and eliminate any confounding factors in the data analysis. The implementation of fish and tissue sampling tasks associated with this objective will be coordinated with activities being conducted to achieve Objectives 1 and 2. Microsatellite markers that have been developed for bull trout molecular analysis will be utilized to describe within and among population genetic variability. Tissue samples will be collected from at least 50 individuals from Big Sheep Creek, Little Sheep Creek, and McCully Creek. In addition, samples will be collected from at least 50 individuals in the upper Imnaha River to allow comparison with a population that has a known fluvial component. The implementation of tissue collection tasks associated with this objective will be coordinated with activities being conducted to achieve Objectives 1 and 2. Habitat characteristics of the study streams will be surveyed to compare relatively weak and strong bull trout populations. Methodology will follow Hankin and Reeves (1988). Habitat types will be identified as pool, riffle, and cascade habitats. Habitat characteristics surveyed will include substrate, width, depth, cover and riparian vegetation. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $381,350 |
|
Biological objectives Characterize the habitat of each population Determine connectivity among populations Determine effective population size Determine genetic population structuring Determine population abundance |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Monitor adult and juvenile bull trout movement Primary R, M, and E Type: Conduct population abundance estimate sampling Primary R, M, and E Type: Collect population demographic information for Ne Primary R, M, and E Type: Collect tissue for population genetic structuring Primary R, M, and E Type: Collect tissue for genetic Ne Primary R, M, and E Type: Collect habitat data |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop and implement robust sampling design and data analysis | A robust sampling design will be used to capitalize on the strengths of closed and open population models used to estimate demographic parameters (Pollock 1982, Pollock et al. 1990). Alternative sampling approaches are currently being investigated for determining population abundance of isolated bull trout populations with varying degrees . These approaches include multiple pass depletion, single pass mark/recapture, multiple pass mark/recapture and mark/resight. The implementation of tasks associated with this objective will be coordinated with activities being conducted to achieve Objective 1. The most effective and efficient sampling approach will be used to estimate accurate and precise population abundances. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $53,000 |
|
Biological objectives Determine population abundance |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Produce quarterly and annual reports on findings to date | Quarterly and annual reports will be produced to update interested parties on the progress of the proposed work. A final report will be generated following final analysis and interpretation of the complete data set. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $79,500 |
|
Biological objectives Characterize the habitat of each population Determine connectivity among populations Determine effective population size Determine genetic population structuring Determine population abundance |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Monitoring Equipment | Install PIT tag antennae arrays | Movement between streams will be determined using PIT tag technology (Zydlewski et al. 2001). Remote PIT tag antennae arrays will monitor the movement of PIT tagged fish at four locations: Big Sheep Creek below WVIC, Salt Creek summit spillway, Little Sheep Creek culvert above WVIC, and WVIC at McCully Creek diversion. Antennas will be constructed as open coil inductor loops with PVC-coated multi-strand wire strung through PVC pipe. Each antenna will be connected to a Destron-Fearing reader that emits a 134.2 kHz electromagnetic energizing signal through the antenna. Readers and computers will be powered by multiple 12-V deep cycle marine batteries (60 ampere hours each) and replaced with fresh batteries on a routine basis. If feasible, a solar trickle charger will be used to extend battery life. A field PC will receive serial data output from the reader at each site; detected tag identification numbers, date and time of detection will be recorded. The readers, batteries and/or power supplies, and PCs will be housed within a weather-proof box located outside of the immediate flood zone of the streams. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $120,150 |
|
Biological objectives Determine connectivity among populations |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Project Lead, GS-11 (0.5) | $29,405 | $31,956 | $34,728 |
| Personnel | Project Biologist, GS-9 (0.5) | $24,302 | $26,412 | $28,702 |
| Personnel | Project Techs, GS-6 (0.75) | $25,912 | $28,160 | $30,603 |
| Fringe Benefits | 30% | $23,886 | $25,959 | $28,210 |
| Supplies | PIT tag antennae arrays (2) | $60,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | GPS Receiver | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | PIT Tags | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Supplies | Equipment Maintenance | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
| Supplies | Sampling supplies | $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 |
| Other | Genetic Analysis | $0 | $15,000 | $15,000 |
| Travel | Field Work - Vehicle Lease, fuel, etc. | $7,500 | $7,500 | $7,500 |
| Travel | Field Work - Lodging and per diem | $7,500 | $7,500 | $7,500 |
| Overhead | Admin and Regional Office | $108,995 | $86,013 | $91,257 |
| Totals | $302,000 | $238,000 | $253,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $793,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $793,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USFWS-CRFPO | PIT Tag Antenna Arrays (2) | $60,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USFWS-CRFPO | Project coordination; Field assistance | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $75,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 9/30/2009
Comments:
Final deliverables: A final report will be provided to contracting agency to meet obligations of contract. Information will be disseminated to scientific community through agency final report, peer reviewed literature, and/or presentation at professional meetings. Final results will be available to scientific community, general public and contracting agency through US Fish and Wildlife Service - Columbia River Fisheries Program Office web site. Resulting information can be used by managers to help identify minimum viable population objectives and limiting factors in continuing recovery planning and future monitoring efforts.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The authors attempt to develop an approach for a very restricted area that will have broad applicability throughout the basin; however, it is not clear how results obtained in this study will necessarily have broad applicability in the basin. The project will only describe movement and habitats in a limited area. Making the larger, region-wide inference that these habitats and movements are requirements for bull trout does not seem justified. The sponsors do not demonstrate how their data will be used to infer what bull trout requirements are. It is not clear that management has many options to act on the information gained to make substantial improvements in bull trout recovery. It is not clear what will be done differently based on the information gained. The effective population sizes of 50 to prevent inbreeding and 500 for long-term sustainability are commonly used in the literature, but are not established theoretically or empirically in conservation biology. The minimum genetically effective population sizes for short and long-term persistence remain speculative. Sponsors indicate that the goal of the work is to provide empirical data toward defining minimum viable population objectives for restoration and recovery of bull trout. The task is to estimate effective population size from demographic and genetic data. The step from these estimates to making the decision on defining minimum population sizes is inadequate. The second step, using management tools to address increasing effective population size in populations where it would be deemed too low is absent from the background. The detail on evaluating bull trout movements is adequate, but the detail on determining the abundance of bull trout is not adequate. Several alternative methods are identified but none has yet been selected. No criteria are given for how this selection will take place. Preliminary fieldwork should have been performed so this could have been addressed in this proposal. No purpose is identified for evaluating within and between genetic variability for this project. What is the purpose of these estimates? What will they be used for? More information is needed on the methods to estimate effective population size. Particularly, how will a standardized variance in reproductive success be estimated? In the habitat analysis - how will a weak and strong bull trout population be defined? Is a habitat comparison between the locations where strong and weak populations found really a valid method to determine habitat requirements? This proposal has a need for a map of the study area in order to describe the potential problems created for the bull trout populations by the irrigation canal and to help the reader follow the study design. This is evident throughout the proposal.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The authors attempt to develop an approach for a very restricted area that will have broad applicability throughout the basin; however, it is not clear how results obtained in this study will necessarily have broad applicability in the basin. The project will only describe movement and habitats in a limited area. Making the larger, region-wide inference that these habitats and movements are requirements for bull trout does not seem justified. The sponsors do not demonstrate how their data will be used to infer what bull trout requirements are. It is not clear that management has many options to act on the information gained to make substantial improvements in bull trout recovery. It is not clear what will be done differently based on the information gained. The effective population sizes of 50 to prevent inbreeding and 500 for long-term sustainability are commonly used in the literature, but are not established theoretically or empirically in conservation biology. The minimum genetically effective population sizes for short and long-term persistence remain speculative. Sponsors indicate that the goal of the work is to provide empirical data toward defining minimum viable population objectives for restoration and recovery of bull trout. The task is to estimate effective population size from demographic and genetic data. The step from these estimates to making the decision on defining minimum population sizes is inadequate. The second step, using management tools to address increasing effective population size in populations where it would be deemed too low is absent from the background. The detail on evaluating bull trout movements is adequate, but the detail on determining the abundance of bull trout is not adequate. Several alternative methods are identified but none has yet been selected. No criteria are given for how this selection will take place. Preliminary fieldwork should have been performed so this could have been addressed in this proposal. No purpose is identified for evaluating within and between genetic variability for this project. What is the purpose of these estimates? What will they be used for? More information is needed on the methods to estimate effective population size. Particularly, how will a standardized variance in reproductive success be estimated? In the habitat analysis - how will a weak and strong bull trout population be defined? Is a habitat comparison between the locations where strong and weak populations found really a valid method to determine habitat requirements? This proposal has a need for a map of the study area in order to describe the potential problems created for the bull trout populations by the irrigation canal and to help the reader follow the study design. This is evident throughout the proposal.