FY 2000 proposal 20038
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Habitat and Passage for Anadromous Fish Upriver of Chief Joseph Dam |
| Proposal ID | 20038 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christopher J. Fisher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 862 Omak, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5094227427 / anadromo@televar.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Columbia Upper Middle |
| Short description | To provide an estimate of the amount of spawning and rearing habitat for indigenous, anadromous salmonids between Chief Joseph Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. To determine the feasibility of providing passage for adult/juvenile fish through Chief Joseph Dam. |
| Target species | spring, summer and fall chinook and summer steelhead |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
2 full time employees; 1 parttime employee; 1 seasonal employee |
$78,500 |
| Fringe |
30% of salary (based on 1997 or 1998 figures) |
$23,550 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies, computer, boat, motor and trailer, underwater camera, hydraulic weights, etc. |
$53,650 |
| Operating |
Fuel, vehicle servicing, outboard fuel and servicing |
$2,924 |
| Capital |
none |
$0 |
| Construction |
none expected during this FY |
$0 |
| Travel |
Vehicle, meetings (i.e. conferences) |
$14,888 |
| Indirect |
39.2% of salary (based on 1997 figures) |
$30,772 |
| Other |
none |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$70,000 |
| $274,284 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $274,284 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $274,284 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Receiving funding for this project in October may delay the project from being initiated until the following spring (May 2000).
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The scope of the survey work needs to be expanded. The measurements were a good starting point but too limited at present to identify limiting factors for anadromous fishes upstream from Chief Joseph dam.
Comments:
The programmatic need is expressed and the objectives seem worthwhile, but it is not clear that this proposal will adequately address the issue or should be a 5-year study. The study plan should be more comprehensive. To demonstrate that the proposal is based on sound scientific principles, it should include, for example, the issue of potential competition and predation by non-native species. Proponents should examine potential changes in habitat under various operational schemes at Grand Coulee. While an examination of current velocity and substrate composition in the reservoir is a good starting point, reviewers would welcome a more careful examination of intragravel water quality, identification of areas of upwelling groundwater, and other species that could potentially act as predators. Also, some references on the ecology of lake-spawning salmon would be helpful. The authors should expand their methods beyond underwater videography. This proposal is not linked to other projects in the area and is the least complete of the reintroduction proposals in the subregion, 96046000, 20124, and 20123. The authors should compare their effort to other regional reintroduction efforts. The addition of a food web study component to the proposal should also be considered.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
We support this project as a high priority funded by COE SCT funds.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal is too general. Purpose, need and product are unclear. Information on the relationship to other projects, measurable objectives, milestones, cost-sharing, subcontracting, information/technology transfer is incomplete.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];