FY07-09 proposal 200722100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Native Trout Restoration in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee Subbasins |
| Proposal ID | 200722100 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Short description | Recovery to naturally sustainable levels of native resident trout populations in portions of the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee watersheds. Investigate small tributaries including high lakes where invasive species threaten native trout populations. |
| Information transfer | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. SASI (Salmonid Stock Inventory), appendix Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia, WA. WDFW agency reports. Possibly as a peer reviewed article. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| violaaev@dfw.wa.gov Viola | WDFW | violaaev@dfw.wa.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: None Selected / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Projects may be located in the Wenatchee, Methow or Entiat subbasins. The following are examples | |||
| 048 28 34.75 N | 120 13 6.49 W | Creek | Methow River, Sec 4 T35 R20, this area is a spring fed creek that feeds into the Methow from a series of beaver ponds. |
| 048 22 0.71N | 120 10 25.48W | River | 1) Twisp River, Sec 9 T33 R21, this area is just below the Elbow Coulee Road on the Twisp River. |
| 048 25 1.07 N | 120 07 59.80 W | River | Methow River, Sec 30 T35 R21, this is an area on the Heath Ranch which is partly owned by WDFW. |
| 048-03-20.69 N | 120-42-o8.75 W | Lake | Myrtle Lake, located in the upper Entiat River drainage in the Wenatchee National Forest (T30N, R17E Section 34). |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull Troutsecondary: Westslope Cutthroat
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199101903 | Hungry Horse Mitigation/Habita | Similar project; template for methodology. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| [BO Title left blank] | [BO Description left blank] | Methow | Section 5.7.4 Objective 2 Strategy 6 in the Management Plan |
| [BO Title left blank] | [BO Description left blank] | Entiat | "Reduction in exotic species will increase survival of steelhead, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Middle and Upper Entiat" Biological objectives 1. Eliminate or reduce impacts of eastern brook trout and hatchery rainbow trout by 2025. |
| [BO Title left blank] | [BO Description left blank] | None | For Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins, Develop a multi-agency approved process for a brook trout removal program in bull trout core areas. |
| Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries | Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data on appropriate habitat parameters, including but not limited to in-stream-flow, gradient, water quality (eg temperature, DO, pH, conductivity), substrate, bank morphology, and geology. | None | Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins |
| Objective 2. Identify threats to native species | Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. Identify potential for predation and competition. Task 2.3 Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. | None | Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins |
| Objective 3. Design/plan management actions | Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. | None | Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins |
| Objective 4. Implement management actions | Prepare permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. | None | Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove or Relocate Non-predaceous Animals | Task 4.2 Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. | Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. | 6/3/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $94,479 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 4. Implement management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Task 4.1 Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. | Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. | 6/3/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $70,479 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 4. Implement management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Task 4.1 Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. | Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. | 6/3/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $70,479 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 4. Implement management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Task 4.3 Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. | Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. | 6/3/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $70,480 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 4. Implement management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Identify and Select Projects | Task 3.1 Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. | Task 3.1 Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. | 4/3/2008 | 6/3/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 3. Design/plan management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Identify and Select Projects | Task 3.2 Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. | Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. | 4/3/2008 | 6/3/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 3. Design/plan management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Task 3.3 Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. | Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. | 4/2/2008 | 6/2/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 3. Design/plan management actions |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Task 2.1 Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. | Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. | 10/2/2007 | 4/2/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2. Identify threats to native species |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Task 2.2 Identify potential for predation and competition. | Identify potential for predation and competition between native trout and introduced species. | 10/2/2007 | 4/2/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2. Identify threats to native species |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Task 2.3 Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. | Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. | 10/2/2007 | 4/2/2008 | $15,355 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2. Identify threats to native species |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Task 1.1 Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. | Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $89,446 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Task 1.2 Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data of habitat parameters | Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data , including but not limited to in-stream-flow, gradient, water quality (eg temperature, DO, pH, conductivity), substrate, bank morphology, and geology. | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $89,446 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Biologist 2 | $46,335 | $47,725 | $49,157 |
| Personnel | Scientific Technicain 2 | $34,506 | $35,541 | $36,607 |
| Fringe Benefits | SS, Retire. Medicare 11.35% per employee, L and I (medical aid $126.00 per month per employee, Personal services 0.6% per employee, Medical benefits per month per employee: $744 | $30,540 | $31,457 | $32,400 |
| Travel | Mileage, per annum (avg 300 miles/mo @ .445/mile), Per diem @ $39.00/day (avg 10 days/month/FTE = $390/mo/FTE), Lodging @ $60.00/day (avg 5 days/month/FTE = $300/mo/FTE) | $15,990 | $16,470 | $16,964 |
| Supplies | see documents | $11,520 | $15,866 | $32,222 |
| Overhead | Indirect @ 28.8% | $40,001 | $41,201 | $42,437 |
| Totals | $178,892 | $188,260 | $209,787 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $576,939 |
| Total work element budget: | $576,939 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [organization left blank] | [provision left blank] | $0 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $195,480 FY 2011 estimated budget: $195,480 |
Comments: Implement post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: None
Comments: Post management actions surveys and evaluation will be needed.
Final deliverables: In 1 – 4 pilot projects management actions will eliminate the most important impediments to native fish recovery. Post-action surveys will provide information on the effectiveness of our efforts. Much information will be provided on impediments to native species recovery and protection and the management actions most effective in eliminating these problems. This information provides guidance for future efforts. Baseline data for current habitat conditions and all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation for many waters in the Columbia Cascade Province will be generated by this effort; future projects will be identified
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: Information on the distribution and status of bull and brook trout populations in these subbasins would be very valuable. However, this proposal is very brief and unconvincing; therefore, the ISRP does not recommend funding at this time. The proposal cannot be evaluated unless much more detail is included on the project design and methods. Where will the surveys be conducted and why? How will data on fish populations be collected? How will habitat conditions be assessed? How will data on water quality be collected and analyzed? Technical and scientific background: The nature of the problem is briefly described. More specific information related to five potential projects listed in the proposal should have been presented to indicate why these had been identified as priority actions. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The relationship of this project to the subbasin plans is briefly described. The lack of data on the distribution and status of bull trout populations hindered the identification and prioritization of projects for bull trout in these plans. Presumably, the survey effort proposed here would provide some of this information. Relationships to other projects: The relationship of this effort to the Draft Columbia Basin Research Plan is provided but there is very little discussion about the relationship of this project to other BPA, state, or federal efforts to address bull trout. Some discussion of the state and federal efforts, in particular, should be included to place this project in context. Objectives: The need for better information on the status of headwater bull trout and brook trout populations is clearly a key information gap in these subbasins. Collecting this type of information is a reasonable objective. The inclusion in the proposal of potential projects seems premature. A more logical approach for this effort would be to focus only on collection of the appropriate data to enable prioritization of projects in the future. It does not appear as though funding for the proposed projects is included in the budget proposal. Other than chemicals for fish eradication, no supplies or equipment that would be used for the possible projects appears in the budget. Tasks (work elements) and methods: This section is a list of tasks. There is no discussion of methods in the proposal. The type of data to be collected for the status assessment is listed in the objectives but no indication of how these data are to be collected or analyzed is provided. Similarly, there is only very general information provided about the methods to be used in implementing the potential restoration projects. Monitoring and evaluation: The determination of current status of the fish and habitat is basically an evaluation effort. However, as noted above, very little detail as to how this task will be accomplished is provided. For the potential projects, the proposal simply states that the response to project implementation would be monitored. No specifics are given as to what would be measured or how. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This cannot be fully determined without a more complete description of the methods to be used. Based on the limited information in the proposal, the equipment available and the skills of the personnel appear adequate. Information transfer: Information transfer is not addressed. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Collecting the information on fish and habitat status would be of value to the focal species. But given the inadequate description of methods, it is impossible to judge the potential for the project to generate useful information. The use of chemical treatment to remove brook trout would have a detrimental impact on co-occurring native species. Collection of the status information should have minor impact.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: Information on the distribution and status of bull and brook trout populations in these subbasins would be very valuable. However, this proposal is very brief and unconvincing; therefore, the ISRP does not recommend funding at this time. The proposal cannot be evaluated unless much more detail is included on the project design and methods. Where will the surveys be conducted and why? How will data on fish populations be collected? How will habitat conditions be assessed? How will data on water quality be collected and analyzed? Technical and scientific background: The nature of the problem is briefly described. More specific information related to five potential projects listed in the proposal should have been presented to indicate why these had been identified as priority actions. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The relationship of this project to the subbasin plans is briefly described. The lack of data on the distribution and status of bull trout populations hindered the identification and prioritization of projects for bull trout in these plans. Presumably, the survey effort proposed here would provide some of this information. Relationships to other projects: The relationship of this effort to the Draft Columbia Basin Research Plan is provided but there is very little discussion about the relationship of this project to other BPA, state, or federal efforts to address bull trout. Some discussion of the state and federal efforts, in particular, should be included to place this project in context. Objectives: The need for better information on the status of headwater bull trout and brook trout populations is clearly a key information gap in these subbasins. Collecting this type of information is a reasonable objective. The inclusion in the proposal of potential projects seems premature. A more logical approach for this effort would be to focus only on collection of the appropriate data to enable prioritization of projects in the future. It does not appear as though funding for the proposed projects is included in the budget proposal. Other than chemicals for fish eradication, no supplies or equipment that would be used for the possible projects appears in the budget. Tasks (work elements) and methods: This section is a list of tasks. There is no discussion of methods in the proposal. The type of data to be collected for the status assessment is listed in the objectives but no indication of how these data are to be collected or analyzed is provided. Similarly, there is only very general information provided about the methods to be used in implementing the potential restoration projects. Monitoring and evaluation: The determination of current status of the fish and habitat is basically an evaluation effort. However, as noted above, very little detail as to how this task will be accomplished is provided. For the potential projects, the proposal simply states that the response to project implementation would be monitored. No specifics are given as to what would be measured or how. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This cannot be fully determined without a more complete description of the methods to be used. Based on the limited information in the proposal, the equipment available and the skills of the personnel appear adequate. Information transfer: Information transfer is not addressed. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Collecting the information on fish and habitat status would be of value to the focal species. But given the inadequate description of methods, it is impossible to judge the potential for the project to generate useful information. The use of chemical treatment to remove brook trout would have a detrimental impact on co-occurring native species. Collection of the status information should have minor impact.