Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Identify Res Fish & Macroinvertebrate Taxa & Function in Anad Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 9046 |
| Organization | Methow Biodiversity Project |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dana Visalli |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 175 Winthrop, WA 98856 |
| Phone / email | 5099979011 / dana@methow.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Methow |
| Short description | Identify resident and non-game fish species and macroinvertebrate genera presence, relative abundance and distribution in the Methow watershed, and assess the ecological role these organisms play in anadromous fish habitat. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$7,230 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,250 |
| Travel |
|
$420 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $8,900 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $8,900 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $8,900 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: The Methow Biodiversity Project is a private organization that is interested in biological issues.We have conducted a 3-year amphibian study and we know what we have. The objective of this study is to conduct an inventory and determine the relative abundance of resident fish and macroinvertebrates in the area. We don't really know what species are here because no one has ever done a study of non-game species. We think that 11 of a possible 18 species exist in the area. As land development increases, so does the use of water resources. We have no baseline data and we have no way to assess the impacts. There are two hatcheries which release coho fry.
Questions/Answers:
Haven't there been 20 years of spawning ground surveys for anadromous fish? Answer: The Fish and Wildlife Service collected a lot of data on abundance but non-game resident species haven't received management attention.
Which Council Program measure is applicable? Answer: We didn't have access to the Program and were told that the correct measure would be filled in.
Screening Criteria: No. Proposal doesn't address a specific Council Measure dealing with resident fish.
Technical Criteria: No. What are target species? Does not meet criteria 6 and 7. Proposal lacks use of historical data and summary of past information.
Programmatic Criteria: No. Proposal doesn't meet criterion 12.
General Comment: This project more appropriately addresses anadromous fish and could be part of a watershed project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The purpose of the project is to describe the baseline on macroinvertebrates, but two years may not be enough time considering the difficulty of studying macroinvertebrates. The proposal listed nine objectives but only described the methods for two of the objectives. Overall, the project seems worthwhile.