FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199001800

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
199001800 Narrative	Narrative
199001800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements of Tributaries to Lake Roosevelt
Proposal ID	199001800
Organization	Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Kirk Truscott
Mailing address	P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA. 99155
Phone / email	5096342110 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	Intermountain
Province / Subbasin	Intermountain / San Poil
Short description	Increase the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat in selected streams that drain into Lake Roosevelt by eliminating migration barriers, improving riparian conditions, and improving instream habitat.
Target species	Adfluvial Rainbow Trout and Kokanee Salmon.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.9537	-118.9777	Lake Roosevelt
47.8936	-118.3415	Spokane River
47.995	-119.6286	Rufus Woods Lake
47.9379	-118.678	Sanpoil River

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
1990	Fish habitat assessment on 5 streams- 40.5km.
1990	Fish population census on above streams (5 streams).
1991	Fish habitat assessment on 17 streams- 130.3km.
1991	Fish population census on above streams (17 streams).
1992	Analyzed barriers to fish migration on 5 project streams (Blue, N. Nanamkin, S. Nanamkin, Iron and Louie).
1992	Designed meander structures for North and South Nanamkin Creeks.
1993	Culvert/passage barrier on North Nanamkin repaired (culvert replaced).
1994	Culvert/passage barrier on Louie Creek repaired (1 culvert replaced).
1994	Culvert/passage barrier on Iron Creek repaired (3 culverts replaced).
1994	6000+ shrubs planted on project streams.
1994	Approximately 4.5 miles of fence installed around sections of North and South Nanamkin Creeks for riparian protection.
1994	1993 through 1995 installed approximately 125 instream structures.
1994	Approximately 150 meters of channel meanders/bank stabilization structures installed (North and South Nanamkin).
1995	Culvert/passage barrier on South Nanamkin repaired (culvert replaced with arch).
1995	Approximately 350 meters of channel meanders/bank stabilization structures installed (North and South Nanamkin).
1995	Constructed/repaired irrigation diversion structures and stream banks on South Nanamkin.
1996	Horizontal stream surveys on the 5 project streams.
1996	Population estimates of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout.
1996	Adult spawning escapement and juvenile outmigration surveys (trapping).
1997	Horizontal stream surveys on the 5 project streams.
1997	Population estimates of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout.
1997	Adult spawning escapement and juvenile outmigration surveys (trapping).
1998	Horizontal stream surveys on the 5 project streams.
1998	Population estimates of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout.
1998	Adult spawning escapement and juvenile outmigration surveys (trapping).
1998	Complete Phase I Report
1999	Horizontal stream surveys on the 5 project streams.
1999	Population estimates of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout.
1999	Adult spawning escapement and juvenile outmigration surveys (trapping).
1999	Complete Phase II Report
2000	Horizontal stream surveys on the 5 project streams.
2000	Population estimates of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout.
2000	Adult spawning escapement and juvenile outmigration surveys (trapping).
2000	FY 1999 Annual Report with data and statistical analysis and pictorial booklet of project.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199501100	Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project	San Poil River is a common river and fishery to both projects. Some data collection and analysis work is shared.
199404300	Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Program	Data and analysis sharing from project to LRMP.
199700400	Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams	Data and analysis sharing from project to overall province management.
199204800	Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Project	Several properties in the project are on or near the San Poil River. The target species enhancement may affect target wildlife species (birds of prey, carnivores, such as bears, etc.)
198503800	Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery	Fisheries data from the project influences stocking from hatchery into the San Poil Sub-basin.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Improve/create passage for rainbow trout/kokanee salmon in Bridge Creek.	a. Create a cooperative landowner/agency agreement for Bridge Creek.	1	$22,200
1.	b. Design/engineer new channel	1	$25,150
1.	c. Design/engineer new channel	1	$14,900	Yes
1.	d. Design/engineer road crossing	1	$7,450	Yes
1.	e. Develop contract(s) for bids/implementation.	1	$7,450
1.	f. NEPA	1	$7,450	Yes
1.	g. Baseline adult fish trapping in spring (adfluvial rainbow trout) and fall (kokanee salmon) before implementation.	1	$18,640
1.	h. Electroshock/population estimates in area to be affected.	1	$9,001
1.	i. Baseline habitat surveys.	1	$9,973
2. Create passage where manmade barriers now exist in the Intermountain Province	a. Research federal, state and county agencies for previous inventories of culverts and/or fish barriers.	1	$4,450
2.	b. Design systematic inventory system for culverts/barriers.	1	$2,450
2.	c. GPS or digitize all information on Tribal GIS system.	5	$13,450
2.	d. Create cooperative agreements or MOAs with local agencies that may assist with passage improvements.	2	$1,450
2.	e. Acquire culvert passage designs and manuals that are available.	1	$500
2.	f. Acquire necessary training for basic design techniques and estimating.	2	$2,500
2.	g. Trap adult fish in spring before implementation.	10	$0
2.	h. Electroshock/population estimates in area to be affected.	10	$0
2.	i. Baseline habitat survey.	10	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$58,500	$58,500	$58,500	$58,500

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Improve/create passage for rainbow trout/kokanee salmon in Bridge Creek.	a. Install culvert/bridge.	1	$0	Yes
1.	b. Re-create original stream channel and floodplain.	1	$0	Yes
1.	c. Plant cuttings/plants.	1	$0
1.	d. Acquire offsite solar water unit	1	$0
1.	e. Build riparian area fence.	1	$0
2. Create passage where manmade barriers now exist in the Intermountain Province.	a. Inventory passage barriers (GPS, photos and data sheet) in the San Poil River Subbasin.	2	$46,605
2.	b. Inventory passage barriers in the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin	8	$0
2.	c. Install culverts/bridges/passage improvements.	10	$0	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$250,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost
1. Improve/create passage for rainbow trout/kokanee salmon in Bridge Creek.	a. Contract/TERO compliance	1	$0
1.	b. Report writing.	3	$4,000
1.	c. Meetings with BPA, CBFWA, NWPPC.	3	$1,400
2. Create passage where manmade barriers now exist in the Intermountain Province.	a. Contract/TERO compliance	10	$0
2.	b. Report writing.	10	$0
2.	c. Meetings with BPA, CBFWA, NWPPC.	10	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost
1. Improve/create passage for rainbow trout/kokanee salmon in Bridge Creek.	a. Trap adult fish in spring and fall for two years after implementation.	2	$0
1.	b. Electroshock/population estimates in affected area annually for 2 years.	2	$0
1.	c. Survey habitat and structures after improvements for 2 years.	2	$0
2. Create passage where manmade barriers now exist in the Intermountain Province.	a. Trap adult fish in spring after passage improvements.	10	$0
2.	b. Electroshock/population estimates in affected area 1-3 months after juvenile emergence.	10	$0
2	c. Survey habitat before and after improvements (approx. 200 meters above and below crossing).	10	$0
2	d. Survey structures after improvements.	10	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$40,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 3	$84,760
Fringe		$23,756
Supplies		$22,977
Travel		$34,300
Indirect		$33,226
		$199,019

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$199,019
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$199,019
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

There was no projected FY2001 forecast because results and conclusions were not available to determine the effectiveness of the project. Additionally, the project selection and sub-basin planning process is a significant departure from previous project selection processes. Project results and conclusions show a positive benefit to fish, therefore a budget for the 2001 funding period is requested to retain project continuity and provide known benefits as a result of passage improvements.

Reason for change in scope

The proposal process change for FY2001, the conclusions in the 1999 Annual Report and the new project proposal funding process has led to extending this project. Data analysis had to be accomplished before requesting extension of the project. The analysis shows that passage improvements are successful for increasing habitat availability and use, whereas instream habitat improvements were inconclusive. Project streams have to this date have shown increases in fish density after the implementation of the project. Additional streams will be examined for passage barriers and habitat improvements; some of the streams were examined in 1990 and 1991 as part of this project. Monitoring has been altered such that more funding is used for assessment and improvements in 2001 and 2002.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Natural Resources Conservation Service	Design and engineering assistance	$14,900	in-kind
Bureau of Indian Affairs	Road Crossing Design	$7,450	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 2000-8)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Proposers have focused on evaluating fish barriers because they have shown that strategy works. The proposal to continue to evaluate and improve fish passage seems appropriate. However, there is risk if remnant populations of bull, redband or cutthroat trout exist above a barrier and would be impacted by introgression or competition if the barrier were removed. Protocol for assessing and protecting any remnant populations should be added to the proposal.

The proposal focuses on Bridge Creek, where a fish passage problem clearly exists. Plans to evaluate, monitor, and recreate the original stream channel seemed well thought through. But what about after Bridge Creek? Are there similar problem sites elsewhere? A three-year plan, or description of how such a plan will be developed, should be presented.

The figures provided to convey data in the proposal and presentation were inadequate to allow reviewers to understand past results. Those figures should be re-done with more appropriate axes and labels. Also, the scientific background material contains only gray literature. It should include also substantial reference to basic material on stream ecology and fish habitat.

Figure 2 on p. 10 shows "Fish Density." Does this pertain to juveniles or adults?

Paragraph 2 on p. 10 begins: "Habitat improvements such as drop structures and meander construction were selected as the method to extend flow duration [emphasis added]. . ." What does this mean?

Same paragraph: a "strategy" is mentioned in the last sentence. What strategy?

P. 13, near end of paragraph 2:"The exclosure was less than effective in reducing livestock damage to the plants stocked." Why was the exclosure less than effective?

P. 14, near end of first paragraph: "Fencing projects to control livestock use in riparian areas is [sic] not a guarantee of success for recovery of the riparian function." Why not?

P. 17, paragraph 2: A backpack electrofisher is mentioned as the sampling gear for population estimates. This probably means the current used will be pulsed DC. The drawbacks of high rates of fish injury and death from pulsed DC should be acknowledged, and the advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack units) should be considered. We understand that the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks has banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.

P. 18, Task 12: Landowner maintenance of riparian protection fences is stated. What will be the quality control on the maintenance?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

M2-The proposed work is not associated with an urgent issue involving a listed (i.e., sensitive threatened, endangered) species. However, for many of the projects urgency does exist in the form of mitigation opportunities. M4-$19,000 from Ferry County (not previously identified)

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2000-9)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

Fundable; the responses are adequate in general, although the data provided in the response still did not enable the reviewers to clearly evaluate past results of the project. ISRP feels it is essential that project staff secure the services of a senior level scientist with expertise in data acquisition and interpretation.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 31, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 11, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$268,500	$268,500	$268,500

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website