FY 2000 proposal 20147

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

Schedule Constraints: Initiation of bull trout data collection is dependent on acceptance and approval of study plan and design by USFWS. A study plan and design will be submitted following ESA permit guidelines in 1999 to start fieldwork as scheduled in 2000.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is one of two proposals for evaluation of Bull Trout populations in the North Fork Clearwater. This proposal, by the Nez Perce Tribe, appears to be primarily for work in the tributary. Studies in Dworshak Reservoir would be conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game under proposal 20148. The umbrella proposal encompassing both projects (20557) reasonably articulates the problem (primarily a lack of background information). The premise is contradicted with claims, first, of an information deficit with respect to "distribution, abundance, and population viability of native fish populations (specifically Bull Trout) in Dworshak Reservoir and it upstream tributaries" followed by "A substantial amount of data exists for the North Fork Clearwater basin from fisheries activities conducted in the reservoir and upper tributaries by NPT, USFS, and IDFG. We will assemble these data to determine streams where bull trout have been observed, and identify population sizes and densities."

Assessment of these data should have been undertaken before or while developing the proposal. The question of how much information exists clouds the entire proposal. Specifically, information may already exist to locate spawning areas and to provide estimates of the number of spawners. Analysis of existing information may provide some estimates of the number of migratory fish at different locations and when they are there. Preliminary analysis of such data would provide the basis to estimate how many fish can be expected to be available for tagging, and what level of effort must be expended (and, whether that is realistic) to gain the recaptures necessary to provide reliable answers to questions. Without such information, the proposal is technically inadequate.

Failure to conduct a preliminary analysis of existing data left reviewers unconvinced that the approach would be successful. For instance, the approach involves Redd counts and PIT tagging of juvenile trout at selected sites (50 meters every 400 m) along "all known Bull Trout streams". There are statistical issues associated with the design (why 50 m every 400?), yet none of these are discussed. Also, how does one know (or estimate) the magnitude of the undercount problem? Surely the snorkeling approach is not going to recover every subject in the sample zone, but there must be some way of estimating a recovery efficiency. The methods outlined under Objective 1 include extensive habitat work that has no relevance to the objective. More generally, key aspects of the methods should be better described. Brief mention is made that densities of bull trout populations in streams will be estimated via snorkeling, and that PIT tags will be placed in fish larger than 120mm. The sponsors include no information on the number of tags and observations needed to meet objectives. They offer no information describing methods for tag detection or monitoring methods/sites and include no statement as to the duration of the project. Escalating budgets are shown for every year to 2004, the last year included in the proposal form, but the proposal lacks a clear statement of what would be done in each year of the project, and when it would be completed

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- There is no evidence that the population is in poor shape. It doesn't meet Criteria 6-8. Projects 20148, 20147, 20156, 9501600, are all doing native fish surveys in the same basin for $650,000. Unnecessary detail on a very small area (over researching the area)

Programmatic Criteria: no- It does not address urgent threat to population

Milestone Criteria: no- It is a survey based proposal.

General Comments: This is inappropriate use of umbrella project, It should have been one project with two separate sponsors. The bulltrout tracking in the reservoir in the project should be under project # 8709900.

Comment: