FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 24025
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 |
|---|---|
| 24025 Narrative | Narrative |
| 24025 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Pend Oreille Subbasin Native Westslope Cutthroat Population Study |
| Proposal ID | 24025 |
| Organization | Washington Trout (WT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Nick Gayeski |
| Mailing address | PO Box 402 Duvall WA 98019 |
| Phone / email | 4257881167 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Lower |
| Short description | Establish baseline information on instream habitat-trout population structure to assess risks to population persistence and effectiveness of land management actions on Colville National Forest intended to benefit native cutthroat trout. |
| Target species | westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.69 | -117.1 | Pend Oreille subbasin |
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 |
| 1999 | Native Trout Survey, Colville NF, DNA results pending; Final Report pending |
| 2000 | Yakima Basin Index of Biotic Integrity Initiated; Year one field sampling completed. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199802600 | Native Trout survey, 1999 | support; will provide additional ecological data. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Select streams and Sites; Prepare maps for Field Use | a)Phone/email consultation with Tom Shuhda,Colville National Forestb) Review maps. | 3 | $1,500 | |
| 2.Plan for Field Work and Schedule Crew(s). | a)Phone/email contact Dr. Pat Trotter, Bill McMillan, Tom Shuhdab) In-person meetings | 3 | $1,800 | |
| 3.Order Equipment and Supplies | a) Assess equipment and supply needsand place orders | 3 | $750 | |
| 4.Benefits and Indirect Costs on subtotal of 4050 | Benefits @ 25%; Indirects @ 20% | $2,025 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $6,400 | $6,700 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation 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 Construction and Implementation phase
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obj.1.Collect mature pre-spawning female westslope from 6 nearby non-study streams for enumeration of eggs, analysis of otoliths, and whole-body lipids analysis (Yr.1) and from subset of study populations in Yr.3. | Electroshock known and likely spawning reaches during late April and early May. | 2 | $8,000 | |
| Obj. 1. Subcontract from Obj.1, Year 1.: | Egg skeins, otoliths, carcasses to Flathead Lake Biological Station (est. samples from 240 fish) | 2 | $12,000 | Yes |
| Obj. 1. Subcontract for Year 3 (contingent) | Estimated sample of 40 females from 4 of the study streams for fecundity, otoliths, and lipids (160 fish) | $0 | ||
| Obj. 2.Conduct foot surveys of entire fish-bearing lengths of the 9 study streams during July/August | Identify and map pools and riffles, and probable spawning areas.Measure and map gradients at regular intervals. | 1 | $10,000 | |
| Annual Report Writing and Communications,GIS. Year One | Report to BPA/ISRP on results of Year 1; preparations of misc. communications (slides, web) and database development; GIS Products | 1 | $6,000 | |
| Objs. 3 and 4. Conduct Population estimates and stream habitat measurements at all study sites annually, beginning year 2. | Conduct Hankin-Reeves visual fish counts calibrated by multi-pass electroshock removals and habitat unit estimates and measurements at all study sites.Take length and weight measurements from electroshocked samples. | 2 | $0 | |
| Obj. 5 & 6. Develop Age estimates from length and otolith data. Measure fish condition and growth, and develop related indices. Develop Age and length data for each study population. Beginning Year 2. | a) obtain length and weight data during annual censusesb) calculate Condition Factors using length and weight datac) and develop length-at-age statistics for each population; estimate age-specific growth from this data (with sub-contractor Reed). | 2 | $0 | |
| Obj. 5 (cont.) | Conduct length-frequency analyses on length data, supplemented by otolith data from years one and three. Start in year 2; revise in year 3.(with sub-contrator Reed) | 2 | $0 | |
| Obj. 7..Evaluate Feasibility of surveying spawning in study reaches, May/early June. Obtain spawning data, May/early June. Beginning Year 2. | Field visit sites May, June for: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 | $0 | ||
| Supplies, expendibles Objectives 1 - 7 | All Tasks | 3 | $5,000 | |
| Travel Objectives 1 - 7 (mileage, food,lodging) | All Tasks | 3 | $11,000 | |
| Obj. 8 And 9.. Develop age-structured population models, each population. Beginning Project year 2. | a) Using data aquired (objs. 1,3,&5), estimate means, variances and distribtions of age-specific parametersb) input parameter values into RAMAS Stage matrix population models (with sub-contractor Reed.) | 2 | $0 | |
| Obj. 8 & 9.. a) Evaluate relationships between Land-use/habitat conditions (Obj. 4) and structure and dynamics of each population (Objs. 1,3, 5, 6 and synthesis in 8). | a) statistical analyses of project specific and comparative regional stream habitat and population data; b) hypothesis evaluation. | 1 | $0 | |
| Obj. 8 and 9. b) Develop viability analyses/risk assessments for each population (with sub-contractor Reed). | Comparison of projections of stochastic matrix models under a range of parameter values/distirubtions drawn from the posterior distributions of vital rates and reflecting alternative hypotheses regarding relationships between stream channel conditions | 1 | $0 | |
| and population vital rates. | 1 | $0 | ||
| Benefits on Personnel costs | 25% | 2 | $6,000 | |
| Indirect costs on all Non-subcontract costs | 20% | 2 | $9,200 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objectives 3 through 9 | 2003 | 2004 | $141,500 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $64,500 | $77,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Field crews @$25/hr. Planning, Report writing, GIS time and data analysis @ $30/hr. | $28,050 |
| Fringe | Wages and salary @ 25% | $7,013 |
| Supplies | $5,000 | |
| Travel | Est. 6 Roundtrip Seattle to Metalline Falls + in-basin travel,food & lodging for 75 crew days | $11,000 |
| Indirect | 20% all non-sub-contract costs | $10,213 |
| Subcontractor | Flathead Lake Biological Station (fecundity,otoliths, and lipids) | $12,000 |
| $73,274 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $73,274 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $73,275 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS Colville National Forest | Lodging 3 to 4 persons (30 days) | $3,000 | in-kind |
| Use of 1 Backpack electroshocker 60 days | $1,200 | in-kind | |
| Use of USFS vehicle 20 days,4000 miles | $1,400 | 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
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable but a response is needed. The response needs to include a list of hypotheses that better acknowledge existing literature and more robustly test the relationships between trout population and sedimentation from forest management practices. This could be important baseline information as roads are considered for decommissioning or as new roads are proposed for construction.Quantitative relations between fish population health/abundance and watershed quality/health are not well defined currently for any salmonid species. Does a watershed that is 50% degraded by some set of measures lose 50% of its fish production potential, or is the relation some non-linear function? This proposal is to begin definition of such a relation for cutthroat trout. The ISRP is aware that continuing and focused study urgently needs to be done to bolster the status of westslope cutthroat trout. This proposal would be strengthened by demonstration of better awareness of the results of existing studies, including an assessment and review of existing methods for predicting incremental change of population health with habitat change.
The ISRP questions whether the cost (killing cutthroat in streams where the population is jeopardized by non-native trouts) offsets the benefit to sacrificing fish from other streams to obtain age-at-length and fecundity data. Proposers are urged to utilize existing data. Similarly, sacrificing fish for whole-body lipid analysis was not justified by the proposal.
Identifying inter-annual fluctuations in trout population size (Platts and Nelson, N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgt. 1988) would be a valuable additional objective for the project. The ability of the study to successfully identify the effects of fine sediments from forest roads will likely hinge on the choice of study streams that are identical except that they straddle a range of sediment coincident with some biological threshold. A maximum road density of 3.7 mi/sq. mi. may be too low to show an effect. USDA-Forest Service personnel, Region 1, have described stream sediments vs. road density. Reviewers recommend that such relations be examined and used to show that a range of habitat conditions related to road density is likely to exist across the proposed study streams. They also suggest the proposers consider directly assessing the pathway(s) of sediment impact, specifically (a) pool volume possibly legislating summer carrying capacity of adult fish and (b) possible reduction of critical living space by sediment in winter (Cunjak, Can. J. Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 1996).
Comment:
Not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers. Some of the work proposed here is redundant with existing information and existing project activities. Genetic data already exists for Fourth of July Creek, one of the sampling locations proposed in this project. In-channel habitat data also exists for several of the sampling locations proposed in this project. This project seems to assume that these 9 cutthroat populations differ across their range. There is a wealth of literature on this subject. Lethal sampling is unwarranted for amount of information derived.Comment:
Fundable. This was a strong response, reflecting some additional planning and reprioritization by the proposers. Lethal sampling is eliminated. A stronger incorporation of relevant published work is demonstrated, and the study appears now to have a higher probability for providing valuable results. To the minus side, the inclusion of two new researchers as advisors, at project expense but without any description of their contributions, is unwarranted. Three years will not be enough to gain the most useful information.Managers presently have inadequate quantitative basis for relating habitat condition and population productivity and viability. The absence of such relations precludes clear answers to questions such as:
- How much and what kinds of restoration are needed to restore a viable population?
- What level of habitat alteration will jeopardize population viability?
CBFWA Comments: Do not fund. Not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers. Some of the work proposed here is redundant with existing information and existing project activities. Genetic data already exists for Fourth of July Creek, one of the sampling locations proposed in this project. In-channel habitat data also exists for several of the sampling locations proposed in this project. This project seems to assume that these 9 cutthroat populations differ across their range. There is a wealth of literature on this subject. Lethal sampling is unwarranted for amount of information derived.
Comment:
Do not fund. Disagree with ISRP and agree with CBFWA that the project is not well coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers, and that much of the work is potentially duplicative with other completed work. The project should not be funded until all parties can agree that the work is necessary.Comment:
Comment:
Consistent with Council recommendation, BPA does not intend to fund.