FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25008
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 |
|---|---|
| 25008 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25008 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25008 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Palouse Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Palouse Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Resident Fish Stock Status in the Palouse River and Upper Crab Creek Watersheds, Washington. |
| Proposal ID | 25008 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jason Mclellan |
| Mailing address | 8702 N Division St Spokane, WA 99218 |
| Phone / email | 5099212407 / mcleljgm@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Whalen, WDFW Regional Fish Program Manager |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Palouse |
| Short description | The project is designed to collect baseline fish related data for the Palouse River and Crab Creek drainages. The baseline data will be compiled into a database, with existing data, for managers, as well as be used to develop fish mangement plans. |
| Target species | Resident fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47 | -117.583 | Palouse River from the Washington/Idaho border to Palouse Falls, including all tributary drainages. Latitude and Longitude approximate the center of this area. |
| 47.417 | -118.667 | Crab Creek from headwaters to Moses Lake, including all tributary drainages. Latitude and Longitude approximate the center of this area. |
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 |
|---|---|
| Not applicable/ new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 21021 | Ford Hatchery Improvement, Operation, and Maintenance | Plant trout in the study area |
| 199502800 | Moses Lake Restoration | Moses Lake is part of the Crab Creek drainage |
| 199700400 | Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coule Dams | Coordinate database development for eastern Washington fish managers, provide link to Streamnet |
| 8810804 | StreamNet | Provides easy access to database for all biologists, via the Resident Fish Stock Status database (also known as the JSAP database) |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Establish historical database for the Palouse River and Crab Creek drainages. | Task a. Compile historical fisheries related data. | 2 | $36,120 | |
| 1. | Task b. Establish database that is easily accessible to local mangers. | 2 | $42,607 | |
| Objective 2. Determine baseline water quality, instream habitat, and fish composition and densities in the Palouse River, Crab Creek, and their tributaries. | Task a. Determine baseline water quality. | 4 | $71,692 | |
| 2. | Task b. Measure baseline instream habitat. | 4 | $111,060 | |
| 2. | Task c. Determine baseline fish species composition and relative densities. | 4 | $126,222 | |
| Objective 3. Determine baseline water quality, primary and secondary productivity, benthic macroinvertebrate densities, and fish species composition and relative densities in lakes within the Palouse River and Crab Creek watersheds. | Task a. Determine baseline water quality. | 4 | $21,615 | Yes |
| 3. | Task b. Determine primary production. | 4 | $21,615 | Yes |
| 3. | Task c. Determine secondary production. | 4 | $21,615 | Yes |
| 3. | Task d. Determine benthic macroinvertebrate densities. | 4 | $21,615 | Yes |
| 3. | Task e. Determine fish species composition and relative densities. | 4 | $21,615 | Yes |
| Objective 4.Genetic characterization of potentially native salmonids in the Palouse River and Crab Creek drainages, including lakes. | Task a. Subcontract WDFW Genetics Lab to conduct non-lethal microsatellite DNA analysis. | 4 | $14,682 | Yes |
| Objective 5. Integrate data collected during baseline surveys into the established fisheries databases. | Task a. Coordinate field data collection with entry into the project database. | 4 | $19,187 | |
| 5. | Task b. Incorporate the project database into the JSAP database and ultimately Streamnet. | 5 | $17,025 | |
| Objective 6. Develop fisheries management plans for the Palouse River and Crab Creek watersheds, including recommendations for future restoration/enhancement projects. | Task a. Write draft fisheries management plans. | 1 | $0 | |
| 6. | Task b. Conduct inter-agency review of draft management plans. | 1 | $0 | |
| 6. | Task c. Write final management plans. | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Establish historical database for the Palouse River and Crab Creek drainages. | 2002 | 2003 | $62,173 |
| Objective 2. Determine baseline water quality, instream habitat, and fish composition and densities in the Palouse River, Crab Creek, and their tributaries. | 2002 | 2005 | $788,683 |
| Objective 3. Determine baseline water quality, primary and secondary productivity, benthic macroinvertebrate densities, and fish species composition and relative densities in lakes within the Palouse River and Crab Creek watersheds. | 2002 | 2005 | $310,998 |
| Objective 4.Genetic characterization of potentially native salmonids in the Palouse River and Crab Creek drainages, including lakes. | 2002 | 2005 | $44,187 |
| Objective 5. Integrate data collected during baseline surveys into the established fisheries databases. | 2002 | 2006 | $344,940 |
| Objective 6. Develop fisheries management plans for the Palouse River and Crab Creek watersheds, including recommendations for future restoration/enhncement projects. | 2006 | 2006 | $251,560 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $472,203 | $484,279 | $504,019 | $345,421 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation 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 Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance 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 Operations and Maintenance phase
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: 4 FTE's and 4 technicians at 40% time | $195,760 |
| Fringe | 4 FTE's @ 24% of salaries | $37,920 |
| Supplies | Supplies to outfit 2 field crews, 4 computers for FTE's | $97,802 |
| Travel | Mileage, lodging, and per diem. | $28,085 |
| Indirect | 25.2% of total excluding 2 backpack electrofishers and Hydrolabs ($6500/$7,000 each; WDFW cap. eq.) | $104,598 |
| Subcontractor | Eastern Washington University | $72,505 |
| Subcontractor | WDFW Genetics Lab | $10,000 |
| $546,670 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $546,670 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $546,670 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Washington University | Historical data collection | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Eastern Washington University | Faculty consultation for fishery surveys | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Eastern Washington University | Faculty consultation for productivity surveys | $20,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW Warmwater Program | Surveys of selected lakes in the study area | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Kalispel Tribe | JSAP server and database | $5,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund unless a response adequately addresses ISRP concerns.
The stated intent of the proposal is to" ... identify fisheries restoration/enhancement opportunities within each sub-basin" (Palouse River and Crab Creek). The strategy for accomplishing this goal is an extensive information gathering effort extending over 5 years at a cost of $2.4 million. It is not clear from the proposal that significant opportunity for fishery enhancement exists in these waters. Conclusions from creel survey were that substantial fisheries presently exist in several lakes in the area (page 1268). The proposal does not adequately justify the need for the information it proposes to collect. The management implications are not specified.
The proposal should be directed to data compilation or field surveys for this cycle with the other (database development or field surveys) being done later. Opportunities for protecting intact habitat, for restoring processes (hydrologic, geologic, and riparian) could be identified, and new proposals could be prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. The proposal includes no discussion of its relation to Project 25092?
The genetics component of this proposal is unwarranted unless the survey work locates populations that might be remnant redband or cutthroat trout populations based on phenotypic appearance. The subbasin has a long history of planting various strains of hatchery rainbow trout. Plantings continue to this day in many of the subbasin's lakes as part of off-site mitigation actions. Thus, the most likely outcome of large-scale genetic analysis of microsatellite loci is that the trout populations in the basin will simply be mixtures of various hatchery rainbow trout stocks, reflecting their mixed origins. Because of this, the microsatellite DNA analysis may indeed detect statistically significant differences between populations. This is to be expected due to different founding histories, confounded with genetic drift, and possibly natural selection if ecological differences exist between the subwatersheds within the subbasin. It would be erroneous to interpret these data with respect to metapopulation theory however; as it would be impossible to partition the genetic differences among populations to drift and dispersal versus the genetic residue of the founding hatchery stocks.
Comment:
The project will indirectly provide habitat protection by providing the groundwork data necessary to evaluate habitat restoration activities. The RFC expressed concern that the proposed work appeared expensive for the areas that would be evaluated and that actions were unwarranted. Genetic analyses should not be conducted at this time. However, samples should be collected and stored in case analyses are needed in the future.Comment:
Fundable: The ISRP concluded this to be a technically sound proposal, but its priority appears low because of likely marginal benefits to fish.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment:
Comment:
Comment: