FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199001800

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements of Tributaries to Lake Roosevelt
Proposal ID199001800
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKirk Truscott
Mailing addressP.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA. 99155
Phone / email5096342110 / kirk.truscott@colvilletribes.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleIntermountain
Province / SubbasinIntermountain / San Poil
Short descriptionIncrease 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 speciesAdfluvial Rainbow Trout and Kokanee Salmon.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$58,500$58,500$58,500$58,500

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$250,000$100,000$100,000$100,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$40,000$100,000$100,000$100,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
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
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

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?


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)
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.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jan 31, 2001

Comment:


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