FY 1999 proposal 9055
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 |
|---|---|
| 9055 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Movement Patterns of Bull Trout in Dworshak Reservoir. |
| Proposal ID | 9055 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Ave. Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Evaluate the movement patterns of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir and N.F. Clearwater River above the reservoir to determine the extent of movement downstream of Dworshak Dam and lost to the drainage. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Fishery technician & Biological Aide | $24,930 |
| Fringe | @36% | $8,975 |
| Supplies | VI tags, radio tags, meals, nets, etc. | $14,000 |
| Operating | Vehicle rental, flights | $9,200 |
| Capital | PIT tag reader, Radio receiver | $6,500 |
| Tag | 200 | $580 |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | @21.3% | $13,655 |
| Subcontractor | College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range | $5,000 |
| $84,840 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $84,840 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $84,840 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: Dworshak Dam blocks bull trout movement through the North Fork of the Clearwater River. (The South Fork is blocked by Hartford Dam.) If bull trout move out of this basin they are unable to ascend back into the system – and there is no opportunity for others to move into drainage. The spatial separation increases the risk of extinction of the species. Gas bubble trauma may also effect bull trout below Dworshak Dam. The goal of this study is to determine if bull trout go through the reservoir and past the dam and develop and to implement strategies to minimize entrainment.Questions/Answers:
Is this project related to the genetic work on the westslope cutthroat trout (9501600)? Answer: These are companion studies. We need to look at the tributaries of Dworshak Reservoir. We can dovetail the stream and reservoir information.
Is monitoring of radio tracking every 2 weeks often enough? Answer: This is the minimum. Initially we will monitor more frequently. If the bull trout move to upper drainage we may not look as frequently. The goal is to monitor fish moving past the dam.
Which Council Measure does this address? Answer: I don't know the details of the Program but this project addresses entrainment through Dworshak which is mentioned in two measures. Bull trout entrainment is probably similar to kokanee entrainment. This project would fulfill measure 10.3C.
Is bull trout entrainment established at Dworshak? Answer: No, but last year we had very high flows and saw bull trout below the dam. They did not suffer trauma.
Do we know much about bull trout biology? Radios are fun and are usually put on 14 -inch fish. Probably the movement is not from adult fish. We need more basic information on bull trout before we use radio tags. This study seems to be focusing on a small segment without knowing the big picture. Answer: Data from the South Fork suggests that the biggest movement is from adult fish. If we tag smaller fish, they may not survive and therefore won't provide the best data. This is one more piece to the puzzle.
How will you determine the significance of entrainment? Answer: A companion study with the Forest Service on the South Fork looks at a mix of fish in the whole Clearwater system.
Does the Governor's Bull Trout Plan have any money? Answer: No. The State Conservation plan doesn't have funding available at this point.
Screening Criteria: No. The project doesn't meet specific program measures.
Technical Criteria: No. There are some concerns regarding radio telemetry methodologies. Research won't benefit the species.
Programmatic Criteria: No. The project doesn't meet criteria 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
General Comment: Why aren't the tasks part of the Dworshak Impacts/ M&E and Biological-Integrated Rule Curves (874700)?
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee CommentsComment:
This proposal is for good basic research on a threatened species with a clear tie to the Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal defines a clear problem and need for study, but could better justify that the work to be done is important to recovery of bull trout. Although the sample size is good for a radio-tagging effort, it may not be adequate to meet all project objectives.