FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28023
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 |
|---|---|
| 28023 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28023 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28023 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate and Control Brook Trout Populations – Addressing Competition and Hybridization Threats in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. |
| Proposal ID | 28023 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cal Groen |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Biological and physical methods will be utilized to suppress or eliminate brook trout populations in area where risk of competition and hybridization with bull trout is high. |
| Target species | Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.4258 | -117.035 | Clearwater River Drainage, ID |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1: Document the distribution and abundance of bull trout and brook trout in the Clearwater River and Selway River watersheds and subwatersheds (5th and 6th Field Hydrologic Unit Codes, HUCS) with headwater lake populations of brook trout. | Task 1.1: Document the extent of downstream invasion of brook trout from headwater lakes and determine if reproducing brook trout populations occur downstream of source lakes. | $70,000 | ||
| Task 1.2: Document overlap in spawning habitat utilization by migratory adult bull trout and rearing habitat of juvenile or resident bull trout with resident brook trout in headwater tributaries. | $44,800 | |||
| Objective 2: Document hybridization of bull trout populations with brook trout. | Task 2.1: Non-lethal collection of bull trout and hybrid tissue for analysis microsatellite (nDNA) markers and mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) to examine population genetic structure for each watershed and document if introgressive hybridization is occurring. | $15,000 | ||
| Objective 3: Analyze the extent of brook trout invasion and hybridization | Task 3.1: Identify tributaries by watersheds and subwatersheds with sympatric populations and/or documented hybridization of bull and brook trout. | $5,000 | ||
| Task 3.2: Prioritize headwater lakes and tributaries for suppression of brook trout. | $5,000 | |||
| Objective 4: Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in mountain lakes and headwater tributaries of Clearwater River Basin watersheds. | Task 4.1: Stocking sterile tiger muskie to suppress mountain lake populations of brook trout . | $0 | ||
| Task 4.2: Suppress brook trout using backpack electrofishing techniques, in the inlets, outlets, and tributaries downstream of mountain lakes. | $0 | |||
| Objective 5: Coordination of existing information and preparation of management plan for bull trout population protection and restoration. | Task 5.1: Contact federal and tribal research agencies to find pre-existing bull trout data in the Clearwater River drainage. | $4,000 | ||
| Task 5.2: Compile all sources to obtain a comprehensive database. | $4,000 | |||
| Task 5.3: Completion of annual report and operating recommendations to benefit bull trout within the drainage. | $6,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1: Document the distribution and abundance of bull trout and brook trout in the Clearwater River and Selway River watersheds and subwatersheds (5th and 6th Field Hydrologic Unit Codes, HUCS) with headwater lake populations of brook trout. | 3 | 4 | $250,000 |
| Objective 2: Document hybridization of bull trout populations with brook trout. | 3 | 4 | $100,000 |
| Objective 3: Analyze the extent of brook trout invasion and hybridization | 3 | 4 | $30,000 |
| Objective 4: Implement suppression efforts of brook trout populations in mountain lakes and headwater tributaries of Clearwater River Basin watersheds. | 3 | 5 | $213,800 |
| Objective 5: Coordination of existing information and preparation of management plan for bull trout population protection and restoration. | 3 | 6 | $45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $183,800 | $180,000 | $180,000 | $95,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Biologist, seasonal employees | $60,000 |
| Fringe | @36.5% | $21,900 |
| Supplies | Flight time, field equipment, electroshocker, etc. | $37,000 |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | @20.5% | $32,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 400 | $900 |
| $153,800 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $153,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $153,800 |
| 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 | Office facilities, supervision, field assistance | $25,000 | in-kind |
| U.S. Forest Service | Field assistance, planning | $22,000 | 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:
Response needed. The idea behind this project seems a good one. The project appears reasonably well thought out and has an experimental / adaptive management element. However, the applicant should carry out objectives 2, 3, and 4 (analyzing the extent of the problem) first, i.e., in the first year or several years, and only then decide whether to undertake the presently stated objective 1 (the proposed remedy) in a future year. This would be the logical order in management. Not stated in the proposal is how long the tiger muskie populations are anticipated to remain in the lakes. Applicant should discuss this and two potential problems: (1) accidental establishment of permanent muskie populations in the lakes in the event that not all tiger muskies stocked are truly sterile (reference and discuss literature on amount of non-sterility); (2) the effects of tiger muskies on bull trout in the lakes and their outlets. The revised proposal should incorporate summer 2001 results from the larger lake mentioned in oral presentation.Comment:
M5 - The Nez Perce Tribe doesn't support the objective to stock of tiger muskies.The RFC suggests this project addresses one of the primary extinction threats to bull trout. The decline and local extirpation of bull trout stocks has been closely tied to invasion, competition, and hybridization with brook trout. Much work remains to be done on this issue, and this project evaluates one approach to the problem that may prove effective in areas where native fish have been displaced by introduced species.
The concept of using an introduced species to combat another introduced species is not uniformly accepted as a viable approach among the RFC. It would have been beneficial to the RFC if a more thorough summary of IDFG's existing tiger musky programs were included in the proposal. Without this summary, the RFC can only recommend a slower approach, looking at longer-term effects of the current program before a more aggressive program is implemented.
One issue worthy of discussion is the long-term management of the treatment lakes when/if the program is successful. The proposal could be strengthened if an additional objective were added to re-establish native species (bull and cutthroat trout) after eradication/control is complete. In addition, it would not be acceptable to continue the stocking of tiger muskies if a sport fishery develops as a result of this effort.
The RFC suggests Task 5.1 and 5.2 should be performed prior to any other objectives and indicated that the proposed stocking efforts would likely be subjected to the Three-Step Review process..
Comment:
Fundable (Low Priority). The project would evaluate stocking of predatory "tiger muskies" (sterile muskellunge-northern pike hybrids) in high lakes as a means of controlling brook trout (a non-native) which compete with native bull trout. The intent is to eliminate the lake populations as sources of brook trout that invade downstream into bull trout habitats. This innovative procedure has shown preliminary indications of success elsewhere in the Clearwater drainage. Other more routine activities (stream population assessment and genetic analysis) will be carried out to aid development of a management plan for native salmonids. The idea behind this project seems a good one. The project appears well thought out and has an experimental/adaptive management element. ISRP reviewers had concerns about project organization and some methodological matters in the original proposal, and these were adequately dealt with in the response. However, the reviewers rate the project as being of low priority compared with other, more pressing needs in the basin.The ISRP questioned the sponsor on matters of risk in stocking tiger muskies, then discussed at length the sponsor's response, which was thorough and helpful. The ISRP considers the risks and potential disadvantages of stocking tiger muskies in this particular situation to be negligible. The use of one non-native to control another non-native should be viewed with caution.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUNone for RPA ESUs. Monitor and improve bull trout populations in Clearwater River drainage by suppressing brook trout populations, documenting the distribution and abundance of brook and bull trout, and documenting hybridization between the two species.
Comments
Important basic work for Bull Trout, with strong potential implications for chinook.
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment: