FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28014

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 / [email protected]
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
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
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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Withdrawn

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

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)).

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Withdrawn

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

[Withdrawn]

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments
Important basic work for Bull Trout.

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Withdrawn from consideration.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: