FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29042
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 |
|---|---|
| Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 29042 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29042 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Letter from J. Peone (Colville Tribes) to L. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: Request that proposals 29042 and 29050 be considered for funding | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Selective Fish Collection And Harvesting Gear |
| Proposal ID | 29042 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jerry Marco |
| Mailing address | CCT Fish and Wildlife Department P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, Washington 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342114 / cctfish@mail.wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | This project will develop, test and deploy several types of selective fishing gear to capture chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for the purposes of tribal harvest, brood stock collection, and research, monitoring, and evaluation. |
| Target species | spring chinook, steelhead, summer/fall chinook, sockeye |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| This project will be undertaken throughout the 124 km length of the Okanogan River, at its confluence with the Columbia River, and in the Columbia River upstream to Chief Joseph Dam | ||
| 48.0985 | -119.7334 | Okanogan River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RPA 164 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 164 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS, USFWS, and Tribal and state fishery management agencies in a multiyear program to develop, test, and deploy selective fishing methods and gear that enable fisheries to target nonlisted fish while holding incidental impacts on listed fish within NMFS-defined limits. The design of this program and initial implementation (i.e., at least the testing of new gear types and methods) shall begin in FY 2001. Studies and/or pilot projects shall be under way and/or methods deployed by the 3-year check-in. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| N/A |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Okanogan Spring Chinook M&E | provide means for data collection |
| 8 | Okanogan Spring Chinook Phase I Production | provide means for isolated harvest program and potential for brood stock collection |
| 9 | Develop Unique Okanogan Basin Steelhead Brood Stock | provide potential means of brood stock collection |
| 11 | Develop Unique Okanogan Summer/Fall Chinook Broodstock | provide potential means of brood stock collection |
| 16 | Assess the Success of Summer/Fall Chinook Spawning above Chief Joseph | provide means of collection fish for translocation |
| GET TOOTH NET # |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop Detailed Gear Testing Plan | 1.a. Review literature on US and Canadian selective fishing gears | 0.1 | $9,500 | Yes |
| 1.b. Investigate acceptability of gear types to tribes' C&S fisheries | 0.25 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| 1.c. Investigate potential test sites in, and access to, the Okanogan and Columbia rivers | 1.0 | $38,000 | Yes | |
| 1.d. Develop detailed research plan | 0.25 | $14,000 | Yes | |
| 1.e. Obtain necessary ESA permits/consultations/NEPA | 0.5 | $9,500 | Yes | |
| 1.f. Purchase test gear and associated equipment | 0.25 | $140,000 | ||
| 1.g. Integrate testing fishing into annual Columbia River harvest plans | 0.25 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Test Selective Fishing Gear | 2.a. Test boats/equipment and develop safety, deployment, and fishing protocols | 0.25 | $0 | Yes |
| 2.b. Prepare test fishing sites as necessary for selective gear | 1.0 | $0 | Yes | |
| 2.c. Test gear on salmon and steelhead runs per research plan and as provided by ESA and harvest plans | 3.0 | $0 | Yes | |
| 2.d. Report findings, including peer reviewed journal | 0.5 | $0 | Yes | |
| 4. Contract Administration | 0.1 | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Test Selective Fishing Gear . | 2004 | 2006 | $400,000 |
| 3. Deploy Selective Fishing Gear for Tribal Fishers and for Fishery Management Purposes | 2006 | $0 | |
| 4. Contract Administration | 2004 | 2006 | $15,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $155,000 | $125,000 | $135,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.2 | $8,000 |
| Fringe | @ 40% | $3,000 |
| Supplies | $500 | |
| Travel | $1,000 | |
| Indirect | @ 20% | $2,000 |
| Capital | 2 boats and fishing gear | $130,500 |
| NEPA | $4,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $82,000 | |
| $231,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $231,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $231,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
N/A
Reason for change in scope
N/A
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
As mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam, about 50% of the BPA costs for this project can be credited to non-power purposes in repayments to the U. S. Treasury.
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:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is to test fishing gear that can release captured fish alive and unharmed. Fish wheels, traps and seines are some of the gear mentioned. The focus of potential fisheries would be upon hatchery fish, and wild fish would be released. The proposal includes a provision to develop a detailed research plan. The intent of the proposal is good, but without a detailed research plan, we do not have an adequate basis for judging the scientific merits of the proposal.There needs to be discussion of a proposed location for the test fishery that would satisfy the requirements of the recovery plans for listed species. There should be a discussion of data available on survival rates of salmonids taken in the proposed gear. Are sufficient data already available from studies elsewhere?
Comment:
The project sponsor has reduced Objective 1c by $35,000. Also, $30,000 could be eliminated from equipment costs by sharing equipment with other projects. This would make 2003 budget $166,000. The budget has been adjusted to reflect these changes. Potential exists for deferring other costs to 2004 or 2005. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Not fundable, as the proposal and response were not adequate. They were, in fact, proposals to develop a research proposal (plan), and cannot be reviewed. Appropriate technical details of the proposed project were absent.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUHarvest project that may lead to reduced harvest mortality on listed stocks. Harvest methods will also be assessed for adequacy in collecting local broodstock.
Comments
Well considered project, responsive to Biop, encouraging that Colville Tribe is considering utilizing selective harvest techniques experimentally. Details are understandably sketchy, but motive is good and one has to start somewhere.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Location of proposed fishery development is not a high priority for reducing take under BO RPA action. Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning. ISRP concerns need to be addressed. This kind of activity could support RPA 164.Comment: