Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199001800

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements of Tribs. to Lake Roosevelt
BPA Project Proposal Number 199001800
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Colville Confederated Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) CCT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Chuck Jones
Mailing Address P.O. Box 150
City, State, Zip Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone 5096342110
Fax 5096342126
E-mail cctfish@mail.wsu.edu
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Inter-Mountain
Subbasin Columbia Upper
 
Short Description Increase the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat in selected streams that drain into Lake Roosevelt by eliminating migration barriers, improving riparian conditions, improving instream habitat, and protracted late summer flow conditions.
Target Species Resident Adfluvial Rainbow Trout


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 10.8B.10
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: NA
Other Planning Document References


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): resident


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1990 Fish habitat assessment on 13 streams.
1990 Fish population census on above streams (13 streams).
1991 Fish habitat assessment on 14 streams.
1991 Fish population census on above streams (14 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).
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).


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Determine fish population status. a. Determine the relative abundance of adult rainbow trout spawners present in five project streams.
1. b. Enumerate juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout outmigrants in five project streams.
1. c. Enumerate juvenile rainbow trout outmigrants in the San Poil River.
2. Determine effectiveness of passage improvements. a. Conduct spawing ground surveys above culverts on five project streams.
2. b. Monitor passage locations to assess the longevity of fish passage improvements.
3. Determine effectiveness of instream habitat measures on channel morphology. a. Conduct channel morphology surveys (horizontal control surveys) on five study streams.
4. Determine effectiveness of riparian habitat improvements. a. Plant survivability survey.
5. Comparative analysis of stream morphology, passage sites, fish habitat, and juvenile fish populations of pre and post implementation. a. Analyze data collected in Objectives 1-4.
6. Maintenance excavation of stream channel and passage structures. a. Provide maintenance of stream channel and instream structures in instances where private property is threatened.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 03/01/99 11/01/99 27.0%
2 03/01/99 06/01/99 7.0%
3 07/01/99 11/01/99 52.0%
4 05/01/99 10/01/99 3.0%
5 10/01/99 03/01/99 8.0%
6 07/01/99 09/01/99 3.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 88,000
Fringe $ 24,640
Supplies $ 5,400
Operating $ 6,000
Travel $ 25,500
Indirect $ 34,496
Other $ 2,000
Subcontractor $ 3,600
Total Itemized Budget $189,636


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $189,636
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $189,636
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

Not applicable  

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Everhart, H.W. and W.D. Young. 1975. Principles of fishery science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. No
Leary, R.F. 1997. Hybridization between introduced and native trout in waters of the Colville National Forest. Report No. 97/3. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. No
Piper R. G., I.B. McElwain, L.E. Orme, J.P. McCraren, L.G. Fowler and J.R. Leonard. 1992. Fish hatchery management. United States Depart. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. No
Scholz, A.T., K.O. Laughlin, D. Geist, D. Peone, J. Uehara, L. Fields, T. Kleist, I. Zosaya, T. Peone and K. Teesatuskie. 1985. Compilation of information on salmon and steelhead total run size, catch and hydropower related losses in the Upper Columbia. No
Scholz, A.T., J.K. Uehara, J. Histata, and J. Marco. 1986. Feasibility report on restoration and enhancement of Lake Roosevelt Fisheries. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. No
Schuett-Hames, D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild and S. Hall. 1994. Timber fish and wildlife ambient monitoring program manual. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Do not fund this year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund this year. Subsequent proposals should provide a thorough analysis of results to date, as noted in the ISRP's FY99 Appendix A comments.

Comments: This is strictly a monitoring and evaluation proposal to determine the effectiveness of past habitat improvement projects in terms of perceived habitat quality, fish abundance, and fish use. It is an existing project that does not provide enough results of its work since funding began several years ago to show benefit to fish and hence does not warrant continued funding. The proposal cites only the FWP as its basis, with no relationships to other projects in the Upper Columbia Basin indicated (when it is clear from other proposals that there is a large, coordinated, regional effort). Neither the Past Accomplishments nor the Project History sections catalog results in terms of fish increase (not even citation of BPA annual reports), only that they did the work. There is good background and rationale, however. The methods appear to be the same as those written in 1996. Reviewers are prepared to accept that approach, but it does not reflect any learning and adaptation since then. It is not clear whether the populations were monitored the same way before and after treatments. The proposal states that statistical analysis procedures are not established, even at a time when the study is nearly complete. This is a poor practice; a statistical plan should have been part of the initial monitoring plan. No staff resumes are provided to establish staff qualifications.

Overall, the monitoring program appears to be sound, but there is very little detail presented on methods. Clear reporting of results-to-date could allow evaluation of soundness. More discussion should be offered on why certain techniques (e.g. Channel Stability Evaluation Procedure and Timber, Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Procedure) were chosen over alternatives. More detail on milestones is needed. We stand to learn a lot from this monitoring and evaluation program and it might be given high priority for funding if adequate results had been presented.

A strength of the program is that overall it is a restoration program for a native stock. All in all, this seems like a reasonable project but it would benefit greatly with some evidence of results after all these years. No further funding should be provided until results are made available for evaluation.

The ISRP's FY99 report noted that the proponents provided no history or description of concrete results. That they neglected to address results this year is unacceptable. The project should not be funded until some accounting is offered of results and accomplishments. The goals are good, and the topic and results are potentially very important for the region.


CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no There is no measurable biological objectives and no milestones listed.


CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Well written.

Seems to be continuing good work since 1990 but no biological results shown.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$190,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The response adequately answers the ISRP questions. Space limitations should not eliminate the need to provide a concise summary of methods and results (it is not necessary to restate whole methodology books or data reports, but to give the essence of why choices of methods were made and how the results matched expectations). The proposal must make the case that the methods are appropriate and that worthwhile results are being obtained for the public's money. This proposal originally did neither, but the additional information was helpful (although sometimes too detailed). The time-line of phases and presentation of results was useful for obtaining perspective on the overall project.

The primary concern of the ISRP was the lack of any report on past accomplishments. The project managers have provided some preliminary results in their response, and cite some annual reports and quarterly reports that have been submitted since the proposal was prepared. In addition, some thought has been given to the ISRP comment that a statistical analysis procedure was not yet developed. Statistical advice is being sought from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Further efforts to provide concise summaries of methods and results would be helpful to future reviewers.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$189,636
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$268,500
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$268,500
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$268,500
Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page