FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33001

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The project proposes to examine redband and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT) throughout the Upper and Middle Snake provinces, yet sampling and collections appear to be confined to Idaho only (admittedly, the bulk of the geography in the two provinces). The project will be stronger with respect to the provinces and the FWP if it is expanded to cover the entire Upper and Middle Snake provinces. The response should describe the extent to which analysis of trout collected from states adjoining Idaho will be included. If this project were funded and completed, it would generate a valuable geographical-based genetic dataset for redband and YCT populations.

The response (perhaps in collaboration with project 199800200) should provide more detail on how conservation units will be designated (describe criteria and process) and how they might be managed. Project sponsors should describe how the anticipated genetic, abundance, life history, and habitat data will be used to identify conservation management units and provide some idea of how these units could be linked together into a protection and recovery plan for Yellowstone cutthroat trout or redband trout in the upper Snake River system. Would the data be used to identify core or source populations from which recovery actions could be expanded or would sets of populations be protected in refuge-type units such as subbasin level watersheds that might be managed under special or restrictive regulations?

As long as inland trout management continues to focus on population level management, state and federal resource management agencies will remain vulnerable to an endless series of listing petition for inland trout species. Only by defining and subsequently managing conservation units at ecological scales above the population level (e.g., watershed, subwatershed, or metapopulation), will management agencies have any protection against future listing petitions, and any real chance of rebuilding and restoring redband and Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations.

Budget summaries do not show any cost sharing. Why is there no cost-sharing?

Comment:

First, although the proposed genetic techniques are technically valid, the CBFWA suggests that using existing fin clip samples to determine population structure can be problematic due to collection design (e.g., samples need to be collected over a large area of stream and samples need to represent various age classes). Typically no more than 10 fish per 100m section of stream should be collected. In addition, lengths and sometime weights need to be collected as well. This is to ensure that adults make up the majority of samples. If only juveniles are collected from a short section of stream, in essence siblings could make up the entire sample, thus providing inaccurate population structure makeup. Samples and sample locations need to be geo-referenced. In addition, samples need to be archived for future use. This and other resident fish genetic projects need to be coordinated among all labs to determine which loci are used and to ensure that methods and techniques are the same.

Second, regarding management applications of resultant genetic data, notably lacking from the discussion is the need or potential to replace the stocking of nonnative rainbow trout with progeny from broodstock developed from pure populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout or redband. In previous reviews the ISRP has indicated that, if a management decision is made to continue stocking fish to augment fisheries in waters inhabitable to native fishes, the brood stock source for such stocking should be from the native fishes. The proposal suggests that Idaho's stocking database may be useful in predicting hybridization and introgression levels and therefore a good predictor of genetic risks to resident trout populations from historical rainbow trout stocking. Using an historical stocking model as a guide to suggest where it may be "safe" to stock non-native rainbow trout, especially where unimpeded access (connectivity) is involved, appears to be playing with fire. Changing environmental conditions could render historic stocking/introgression risk assumptions/relationships invalid. A more comprehensive policy of using progeny from native broodstock for stocking purposes would be less risky.

Third, per the ISRP's comments, the sponsors have modified, through the "fix-it loop", their proposal to include the analysis of redband trout from Oregon waters. Although the proposal sponsors include a personal communication reference (BPT personnel) with respect to the allocation of samples from Malheur Subbasin waters, the CBFWA has identified an oversight. The Statement of Work that the BPT has submitted to BPA for Project 199701900 provides for the collection of samples (i.e., fin samples) and genetic analysis of salmonid species, which includes redband trout, from the locations identified in the revised Proposal 33001. The CBFWA suggests that the BPT should make available, if requested by the sponsors of Proposal 33001, the results from the genetic analyses (techniques used in Project 199701900 are the same as those proposed in 33001) that have and will be obtained through Project 199701900. The CBFWA believes the allocation of funds to Proposal 33001 for the analysis of samples from Oregon would result in unnecessary duplicative efforts in a province where only $500,000 is available for new work. The CBFWA suggests that funding the Oregon portion of the Proposal 33001 would create a duplication of effort and entail an inefficient use of resources. In addition, the CBFWA expressed concern relative to the lack of coordination with the ODFW's staff, specifically their geneticist. Given the CBFWA concerns about duplicative efforts, the geneticists from ODFW, IDFG and MDFWG should meet to coordinate their efforts.

Comment:

The technical review comments from CBFWA were thoughtful and should be considered by the project sponsors before project implementation.

Comment:

Comment: