FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199700400
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 |
|---|---|
| 199700400 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199700400 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams |
| Proposal ID | 199700400 |
| Organization | Kalispel Tribe of Indians (KNRD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Joseph Maroney |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 39 Usk, WA 99180 |
| Phone / email | 5094451147 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joseph Maroney |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Lower |
| Short description | Assess the fish assemblages and habitat conditions for all resident fish species in the blocked area by compiling existing data and preforming research where data gaps are identified. |
| Target species | All resident fish within the blocked area |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.7782 | -117.4068 | Box Canyon Reservoir |
| 47.7948 | -117.5345 | Little Spokane River |
| 47.7752 | -117.5358 | Nine Mile Reservoir |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Formalized the blocked area coordination group represented by the Kalispel Natural Resource Department, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. |
| 1997 | Identified critical needs for the project's success: A central data storage and analysis system, input and analysis of existing data to identify data gaps, standardization of sampling methodologies and coordination of data exchange with ongoing projects. |
| 1998 | Constructed data storage and analysis system. |
| 1998 | Began adressing identified data gaps with the Box Canyon Reservoir migratory study. |
| 1998 | Began an analysis of existing data on the Spokane River System to idetify needed research. |
| 1999 | Completed the standardization of sampling methodologies. |
| 1999 | Completed a genetic analysis of cutthroat trout in the Lower Pend Oreille. |
| 1999 | Completed analysis of Spokane River existing data. |
| 1999 | Began fish and habitat surveys in the streams and lakes of the Spokane Indian reservation. |
| 1999 | Completed a fish and habitat survey of Sand Creek. |
| 2000 | Completed the Box Canyon Reservoir migratory study. |
| 2000 | Completed fish and habitat surveys for Boundary Reservoir and its associated tributaries. |
| 2000 | Completed fish and habitat surveys for Half Moon and Yokum Lakes. |
| 2000 | Completed fish and habitat surveys on Blue, Castle Rock, and Oyachen Creeks on the Spokane Indian Reservation. |
| 2000 | Completed fish surveys in the four major lakes of the Spokane indian Reservation. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9500100 | Kalispel Resident Fish Project | Information exchange, personnel/equipment sharing and blocked area coordination |
| 5528100 | Lake Roosevelt kokanee net pens | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 8503800 | Colville tribal fish hatchery | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9001800 | Lake Roosevelt rainbow trout habitat/passage improvement project | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9104600 | Spokane Tribal hatchery (Galbraith Springs) | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9104700 | Sherman Creek hatchery O&M | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9404300 | Lake Roosevelt fisheries evaluation program | Information exchange, personnel/equipment sharing and blocked area coordination |
| 9501100 | Chief Joseph kokanee enhancement project | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9502800 | Assessment of fishery improvements in Moses Lake. | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9506700 | Lake Roosevelt rainbow trout net pens | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 9700300 | Box Canyon watershed project | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 8810804 | StreamNet | Information exchange |
| 9502700 | Lake Roosevelt white sturgeon recovery plan | Coordinate and assist in population assessments and information exchange |
| 21025 | Intermountain Province resident fish symposium | Forum for research coordination and information exchange |
| 21021 | Ford hatchery O&M | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 21008 | Evaluation of the Banks Lake fishery | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
| 21020 | Monitor and enhance the lakes and streams of the Spokane Indian Reservation | Information exchange and blocked area coordination |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Utilize existing data and ongoing research in order to compile a complete inventory of the baseline conditions of resident fish stocks and habitat in the blocked area. | a. Determine species present and estimate relative densities of fish in the remaining unsurveyed tributaries to Box Canyon Reservoir. | 4 | $25,000 | |
| 1. | b. Conduct habitat assessments in the remaining unsurveyed tributaries to Box Canyon Reservoir. | 4 | $25,000 | |
| 1. | c. Determine species present and estimate relative densities of fish for the 50 fish bearing lakes in the Lower Pend Oreille Basin. | 5 | $25,000 | |
| 1. | d. Conduct habitat and productivity assessments for the 50 fish bearing lakes in the Lower Pend Oreille Basin. | 5 | $25,000 | |
| 1. | e. Determine species present and relative densities of fish in the Little Spokane River and its tributaries | 1 | $75,000 | Yes |
| 1. | f. Genetic characterization of potentially native salmonid populations in the Little Spokane River and its tributaries. | 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
| 1. | g. Determine species present and relative densities of fish in Nine Mile Reservoir. | 1 | $75,000 | Yes |
| 1. | h. Genetic characterization of potentially native salmonid populations in Nine Mile Reservoir. | 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
| 1. | i. Conduct habitat and fisheries assessments in waterbodies on the Spokane Indian Reservation. | 3 | $75,000 | Yes |
| 1. | j. Conduct habitat and fisheries assessments in coordination with the Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Recovery Project. | 3 | $75,000 | Yes |
| 1. | k. Continue to coordinate with other ongoing and proposed projects to incorporate their data into the centralized database. | ongoing | $3,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Utilize existing data and ongoing research in order to compile a complete inventory of the baseline conditions of resident fish stocks and habitat in the blocked area. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,870,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $455,000 | $460,000 | $475,000 | $480,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Use the centrally stored and managed data collection to cooperatively manage the blocked area as a system. | a. Maintain-update the common GIS/database system. | ongoing | $65,000 | |
| 1. | b. Develop and apply standard codes and georeference information to blocked area data in order to convert and exchange data with project participants and the StreamNet Project Online Database. | ongoing | $7,000 | |
| 1. | c. Attend training, conferences or symposia to keep current in ecosystem analysis and management, ensuring the project is preforming at the highest level. | ongoing | $1,500 | |
| 1. | d. Continue annual meetings with blocked area managers to discuss project progress and direction. | ongoing | $1,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Use the centrally stored and managed data collection to cooperatively manage the blocked area as a system | 2003 | 2006 | $330,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $75,000 | $80,000 | $85,000 | $90,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation 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 Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.75 | $88,510 |
| Fringe | @ 33% | $29,210 |
| Supplies | $6,500 | |
| Travel | Vehicle lease, fuel, oil and maintenance @ .325$/mile. Airfare, auto rental and per diem. | $10,250 |
| Indirect | @ 17.5% | $23,530 |
| Capital | Drift electrofishing boat and accessories | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Washinton Department of Fish and Wildlife | $190,000 |
| Subcontractor | Spokane Tribe of Indians | $75,000 |
| Subcontractor | Confedarated Colville Tribes | $75,000 |
| $518,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $518,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $518,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $518,000 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
There were some semantic arguments over the definitions of scope, goals, objectives and tasks with respect to the 2001 proposal. Objectives listed in the past were really tasks to accomplish the objectives listed in this proposal. The scope and objectives have not changed since the project's start. The tasks to complete those objectives will change as we complete the assessments of one watershed and move to the next.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kalispel Tribe of Indians | 1/4 time for GIS/database manger and office lease and operation | $30,000 | cash |
| Kalispel Tribe of Indians | Use of electrofishing boat, sampling equipment and personnel | $45,000 | in-kind |
| EPA | Cost for collection, analysis and reporting of baseline water quality and invertebrate data on inland lakes | $25,000 | cash |
| Spokane Tribe of Indians | Use of office facilities, sampling equipment and personnel | $30,000 | in-kind |
| Pend Oreille Public Utility District #1 | Cost for stream fish and habitat surveys, analysis and reporting in the Lower Pend Oreille | $170,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Feb 9, 2001
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The proposal describes baseline assessment work in progress to support the Blocked Area Plan and the Kalispel Natural Resources Department Management Plan. Although the proposal has received favorable reviews in the past and the ISRP is supportive of the value of collecting baseline data, two items need additional clarification. The first regards the sequencing of the data collection effort. As indicated during the oral presentation, the current plan is to move systematically from east to west across the project area. Although that might be most appropriate, an alternative approach, that of first focusing on sites given priority in subbasin summaries, might provide a more efficient allocation of limited resources (and would more easily enable the identification of critical milestones along the way).Secondly, the sampling of fish populations needs to be clarified. The ISRP understands the inherent difficulties in conducting actual population estimates in lakes and agrees that the JSAP protocol of gathering catch per unit effort (CPUE) data is generally appropriate in lakes. In streams, however, population estimates are more easily obtained but the proposal (p. 12) does not clearly state whether CPUE data or actual population estimates are the standard. Please clarify. Further, describe the basic stream electrofishing protocol (number of passes, possible use of block nets, site length). How will population data be obtained in larger rivers using the drift boat electrofishing unit identified for purchase in the proposed budget?
Comment:
This project will be wrapping up the majority of the sampling in this province during this review cycle. The work is moving into the Intermountain Province where the work is considered a high priority by the fish and wildlife managers in that area.Comment:
Fundable. The response adequately addressed the issue of the geographical sequencing of data gathering. It indicated there was some logical planning and sensitivity to subbasin needs. In the next rolling review, the ISRP will be looking for a clear description how the managers are using the data gathered by this project. The ISRP and sponsors had a communication problem regarding the CPUE vs. population estimates for streams. The response does not say which of the two is the standard. The ISRP understands population estimates are (or should be) the standard.Comment:
This project should be funded as described. Bonneville has no additional comments on this project.Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
No comments.Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
expense
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $540,000 | $540,000 | $540,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website