FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200204300
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 |
|---|---|
| 24008 Narrative | Narrative |
| 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 | Genetic Inventory of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the Pend Oreille Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 200204300 |
| 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 / jmaroney@knrd.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joseph Maroney |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Lower |
| Short description | Establish a genetic sampling program for bull trout and westslope cutthroat in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. This information will be used in the recovery of bull trout in the Lower Pend Oreille Recovery Unit and to document hybridization among westslope. |
| Target species | Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.69 | -117.1 | Pend Oreille subbasin |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199500100 | Kalispel Resident Fish Project | Personnel/equipment sharing. Addressing limiting factors for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout |
| 199700400 | Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. | Personnel/equipment sharing. Information exchange and blocked area coordination. |
| Upper Pend Oreille Subbasin Exotic Fish Control | Personnel/equipment sharing. Addressing limiting factors for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout |
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. Comprehensively identify the genetic characteristics and inter-relationships of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout populations within the Pend Oreille Subbasin. | a. Collect samples from 30 bull trout and 55 westslope cutthroat populations within the Pend Oreille Subbasin | 2 | $20,245 | |
| b.Conduct microsatellite DNA anaysis of those samples collected in Task (a) to determine genetic relationships between populations and estimate genetic variation within and among those populations. | 2 | $140,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Identify the extent of hybridization between bull trout and brook trout and among westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout within the Pend Oreille Subbasin. | a. Collect samples from 30 bull trout and 55 westslope cutthroat populations within the Pend Oreille Subbasin | 2 | $20,245 | |
| b.Conduct microsatellite and/or other DNA anaysis of those samples collected in Task (a) estimate the extent of hybridization between bull trout and brook trout and between westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout. | 2 | $63,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Comprehensively identify the genetic characteristics for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout within the Pend Oreille Subbasin. | 2003 | 2003 | $142,000 |
| 2. Identify the extent of hybridization between bull trout and brook trout and among westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout within the Pend Oreille Subbasin. | 2003 | 2003 | $65,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $207,000 |
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: Project Mgr (130 hrs@23.00/hr) 2-3mo. techs (1040 hrs@11.50/hr) | $14,950 |
| Fringe | 33% | $4,930 |
| Supplies | Field supplies, backpack electrofisher | $5,500 |
| Travel | per diem, mileage, GSA vehicle etc. | $5,000 |
| Indirect | 17.5% | $5,310 |
| Capital | 3 PCR Machines | $24,000 |
| Subcontractor | WDFW | $179,000 |
| Subcontractor | Baxter Environmental | $4,800 |
| $243,490 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $243,490 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $243,490 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kalispel Tribe | Use of equipment/personnel/facilities | $8,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout will be collected (by electrofishing) from 60 locations in the Pend Oreille subbasin in Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia by the Kalispel Tribe, WDFW, IDFG, and a consultant. Genetic analysis from fin portions, done by WDFW and representing the most costly component of the project, would assess the extent of hybridization with non-native salmonids.This project seems to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the subbasin summary. The proposal is concise and has clear goals. The information should help to clarify population structures and dynamics (gene flow). The microsatellite DNA analysis proposed is an important component of the management of threatened populations.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout will be collected (by electrofishing) from 60 locations in the Pend Oreille subbasin in Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia by the Kalispel Tribe, WDFW, IDFG, and a consultant. Genetic analysis from fin portions, done by WDFW and representing the most costly component of the project, would assess the extent of hybridization with non-native salmonids.This project seems to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the subbasin summary. The proposal is concise and has clear goals. The information should help to clarify population structures and dynamics (gene flow). The microsatellite DNA analysis proposed is an important component of the management of threatened populations.
Comment:
This project should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to the ISRP/CBFWA review comments.Comment:
Bonneville provided the Council substantial comments on the projects proposed for funding in this province. Bonneville put the project into eight separate categories as follows:
Category 1. Fund - ESA BiOp Projects that meet both the needs of the Council Fish and Wildlife program and the ESA requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Opinion for operation of the Upper Columbia FCRPS dams and should be fully funded with qualifications as needed.
Category 2. Fund - Ongoing Projects, which should be fully funded.
Category 3. Fund In Part or with Qualifications - Ongoing projects that should be funded with the stated qualifications.
Category 4. Fund In Part - New, includes two projects, which are a combination of ongoing projects and new projects designed for wildlife mitigation. The existing portions of these projects should be funded, but the wildlife mitigation objectives should not be funded for the reasons discussed later in this cover letter.
Category 5. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - No Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to those provided by ISRP/CBFWA.
Category 6. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - With Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed later in this letter.
Category 7. Do Not Fund - Ongoing, lists projects that should not be funded to continue implementation of the current objectives based on our agreement with the technical review of the ISRP.
Category 8. Do Not Fund - New, lists projects that should not be funded based on our agreement with the ISRP comments on the scientific merit of the projects, or with CBFWA on the timing and need for the project.
The following list of six projects all received a fundable rating by the ISRP, and was ranked as high priority by CBFWA. Thus, these projects are all "consensus priorities" and under our proposed decision rule, are parts of the base of projects that the staff proposes the Council recommend funding. However, the Bonneville comments put the first four the following projects into category five, and the last two into category six -- meaning that it does not support funding these projects until after subbasin planning is completed. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the comments or qualifications that it proposes for the two projects in category six are not of the nature or type that they have to be resolved through subbasin planning -- the qualifications presented could be dealt with immediately).
- 24003 Acquire and conserve bull trout and westslope cutthroat habitat in Trestle Creek (Pend Oreille subbasin).
- 24005 Smith Creek Restoration (Kootenai subbasin)
- 24008 Genetic inventory of bull trout and westslope cutthroat in the Pend Oreille subbasin (Pend Oreille subbasin)
- 24012 Habitat preservation -- Weaver and McWinegar sloughs (Flathead subbasin)
- 24015 Wetland/Riparian Enhancement, Protection, Restoration in Coeur d' Alene subbasin
- 24017 Restoring bull trout habitat in Blackfoot River's North Fork (Blackfoot)
The issue presented is what appears to be a Bonneville prioritization or ranking of projects that meet fish and wildlife program standards and have ISRP and CBFWA support that subordinates them to ESA based projects. The staff concern is not that Bonneville is very diligent about trying to meet its ESA obligations, but rather, that it appears that its focus on those obligations may be coming at the expense of other obligations and projects pursuant to the fish and wildlife program, and that Bonneville is doing that sort of prioritizing without consultation with the Council. For example, as staff was developing this memorandum, we received a copy of a letter dated May 25, 2001 from Robert Austin to Chairman Cassidy "informing" the Council that Bonneville was going to fund six research oriented projects to meet what it understands to be the FCRPS Biological Opinion needs.
Thus, the six "fund/fund" projects that Bonneville would defer in the Mountain Columbia may be an indication Bonneville's ESA needs are in fact being advanced over other fish and wildlife program needs. Without any statement of reasons why these projects would be deferred, the fair inference is that Bonneville is doing something of a unilateral budgeting exercise. As a programmatic policy matter, the Council will need consider if and how it wishes to address this matter with Bonneville.
Comment:
Bonneville believes this project will supply valuable information to the subbasin planning process. Consequently it will be important that the project is completed in a timely manner and that reports and recommendations are accessible to the subbasin planners for potential future project development.
Comment:
Council 04 is incorrect. Project split in three years from two year proposal. Project ends in 05.
Comment: