FY 2000 proposal 199502800

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
199502800 Narrative	Narrative
199502800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fishery
Proposal ID	199502800
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Joe Foster
Mailing address	1550 Alder Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823-9651
Phone / email	5097544624 / FosteJHF@DFW.WA.Gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Crab
Short description	Restore/enhance the failed recreational fishery for resident species in Moses Lake, once the premier fishery for resident game fish in the Columbia Basin, in lieu of lost recreational fishery opportunities for anadromous game fish species in the upper Col
Target species	Black Crappie, Bluegill, Yellow Perch, Rainbow Trout, Largemouth Bass, Walleye, Smallmouth Bass

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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
	Objective 1: Synthesize all current information on Moses Lake. Task 1.1 Review existing information on the fisheries and ecology of Moses Lake. Task 1.2 Analysis of previously collected data. A. Bring database up to date B. Examine previously col
	Objective 2: Data collection. Task 2.1 Continued collection of baseline information. Task 2.2 Preliminary surveys suggested by initial literature and data analysis. Task 2.3 Collect water quality, habitat and fisheries information currently unavailabl
	Objective 3: Formulate a detailed study plan. Task 3.1 Develop hypotheses as to what factors are currently limiting the production and recruitment of bass, crappie, bluegill, perch and trout to the recreational fishery. Task 3.2 Develop and test method

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9700400	Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams	Information exchange/blocked area coordination.

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	Includes one Fish Biologist 3 @ $45,996 and two Fish Biologist 1's each @ $33,372	$112,740
Fringe	Includes one Fish Biologist 3 @ $11,240 and two Fish Biologist 1's each @ $9,327	$29,894
Supplies	Goods and Services	$16,910
Capital	Equipment includes a Hydrolab @ $10,307; Boat, Trailer, and Motor @ $12,000; and Fyke Nets @ 1,482	$23,789
NEPA	N/A	$0
Travel	Mileage and per diem	$8,040
Indirect	WDFW Overhead (20% on all items except equipment listed under Capital acquisitions.	$33,517
Other	Enhancement Project Account - funding for future enhancements identified during the course of the in	$10,000
		$234,890

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$234,890
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$234,890
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
N/A		$0	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: FY 2000 Tasks may be modified, added to or deleted depending on the final plan resulting from Objective 3 in FY 1999. As the necessary information becomes available, management actions in Objective 2 - FY 2000 which could be implemented earlier than 10/2001 may become apparent. These actions will be implemented if it is likely that 1) the subsequent results would test a hypothesis, or 2) if it would be beneficial to begin monitoring an action before Phase 3 commences because a longer evaluation is desirable.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until they propose testable hypotheses developed from the existing data. There has been inadequate synthesis of existing data. Identify some specific problems, then re-submit the proposal.

Comments: This clearly presented proposal for an ongoing project would replace recreational fishery losses because of declining anadromous fish populations with warm water game fishes such as crappie, bass, yellow perch and walleye. Accomplishments to date include compilation of a reference library on Moses Lake fishery, collection of water quality and habitat data, and formulation of study plan. The current proposal is for Phase 2, which involves further data collection and development of specific introduction proposals. The sampling procedures should have been described in greater detail. However, additional data collection may not be warranted or of high priority at this time because there has been a lot of data collected on Moses Lake. How much more information do we need about black crappie and smallmouth bass? The proposers should look at the data they have and describe the testable hypotheses, although it is not apparent how such a small group of people would be able to analyze all the data. Phase 2 also includes completion of biological profiles for major fishes and habitat mapping. Presumably, Phase 3 would involve introductions and monitoring. Generally, the project is not designed to meet regional goals in terms of native fishes. Continued reliance on warm water fishes for recreational fishing opportunities may confound public expectations regarding restoration of anadromous fishes to fishable population levels. No cost share is provided in this project. Why isn't WDFW funding part or all of this? Are there chances for dispersal of introduced fishes?

The proposal does not adequately address the ISRP's FY99 comments, Appendix A page 65: "The proposal is for a highly managed non-native harvest fishery and the choice of fish stocks is not biologically justified. The proposal does not adequately ensure that the proposers have sufficient understanding of the reasons for fisheries decline in Moses Lake to restore the fishery. The experimental design is not clearly presented or justified, and the proposal does not adequately describe the methods to be used for some very complicated actions. Additionally, the effects of angling are not well described."

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no There is insufficient detail on milestones and no established track record.

General Comment: There is a lot of funding discrepancies on this project. There is also concern about how FY98 funds were allocated and expended.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The project managers have gone to some length to justify the recreational warm-water fishery in Moses Lake and to explain how this is related to the Fish and Wildlife Plan. Overall, they did an adequate job of describing the problem and justifying the approach. Of particular interest are the testable hypotheses for explaining the fishery decline, e.g., the apparent proliferation of carp in the lake.

Some detailed explanation of how much, and what type of, data analyses are really needed to complete Phase I would have been helpful. For example, are there long-term measurements of turbidity or Secchi depth over time to determine if Moses Lake has become progressively more turbid? The reference to harvest being a constant was not adequately substantiated.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

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:
$222,702	$222,702	$222,702

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website