Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199500100

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 Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish
BPA Project Proposal Number 199500100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Kalispel Tribe of Indians
Business acronym (if appropriate) KNRD
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Joseph Maroney
Mailing Address P.O. Box 39
City, State, Zip Usk, WA 99180
Phone 5094451147
Fax 5094455302
E-mail jmaroney@knrd.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Inter-Mountain
Subbasin Pend Oreille
 
Short Description Assess native trout habitat in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River and implement recommendations for enhancement. Provide largemouth bass habitat in mainstem Pend Oreille River and supplement population. Monitor and evaluate all enhancement measures.
Target Species bull trout, westslope cutthroat and largemouth bass


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: Section 10.8B.14, 15, 16, 18 and 19
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References Resident Fish Managers multi-year implementation plan Upper Columbia Blocked Area Management Plant (in press) Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program Kalispel Natural Resource Department Fish and Wildlife Management Plan


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
1995 Assessed priority tributaries
1995 Developed recommendations for tributary enhancement
1995 Designed largemouth bass hatchery
1995 Designed for brook trout removal
1995 Developed recommendations for warmwater habitat enhancement
1996 Constructed largemouth bass hatchery
1996 Implement tributary enhancement measures
1996 Implement brook trout removal
1996 Implement warmwater habitat enhancement
1997 Monitor and evaluate tributary enhancement
1997 Monitor and evaluate warmwater habitat enhancement
1999 Released 150,000 largemouth bass
1999 Monitor and evaluate largemouth bass supplementation


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9700400 Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Information exchange/equipment sharing/blocked area coordination. No
9700300 Box Canyon Watershed Project Cooperative development and implementation to protect and/or restore fish habitat and water quality in the watershed. Information exchange/equipment sharing/blocked area coordination. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Monitor and evaluate habitat enhancement projects a. Conduct post-assessments on enhancement structures built during 1996-1998 by an intensive assessment of the enhancement area and fish snorkel survey.
1. b. Conduct post-assessments on fencing and riparian planting reaches completed during 1996 and 1997 through an intensive assessment of the enhancement area and fish snorkel survey.
1. c. Conduct post-assessments on small woody debris removal reaches completed during 1996 and 1997 through an intensive assessment of the enhancement area and fish snorkel survey.
2. Maintenance of habitat enhancement structures. a. Maintain and repair any damage to habitat enhancement structures.
3. Develop recommendations for additional enhancement. a. Based upon information collected in post-assessments, develop recommendations for enhancement measures in additional reaches of streams.
4. Conduct habitat assessments and species distribution on additional tributaries to the Pend Oreille River. a. Assessment of Pend Oreille River tributaries utilizing Kalispel Natural Resource Department Habitat Assessment Methodology.
4. b. Snorkel tributaries to Pend Oreille River to determine species distribution and abundance.
5. Monitor and evaluate warmwater habitat enhancement project. a. Electroshock warmwater enhancement structures placed in Box Canyon Reservoir to determine fish utilization and enhancement effectiveness.
5. b. Based on information collected in monitoring and evaluation phase, develop recommendations for additional warmwater enhancement structures.
6. Operate and maintain largemouth bass hatchery to increase harvestable biomass in Box Canyon Reservoir. a. Egg collection, spawning and incubation of largemouth bass to meet 2001 APG.
6. b. Hatch, rear and train on feed, juvenile largemouth bass.
6. c. Mark all hatchery production and outplant fry and fingerlings to Box Canyon Reservoir.
7. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of largemouth bass supplementation. a. Sample Box Canyon Reservoir to determine effectiveness of hatchery supplementation.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 06/01/97 06/01/16 97,410 bull trout 242,212 cutthroat X 20.0%
2 06/01/97 06/01/08 5.0%
3 11/01/00 11/01/08 Based upon M&E, develop recommendations for additional streams 5.0%
4 01/01/97 Determine habitat quality, species distribution and abundance 10.0%
5 01/01/97 0+ survival of 15-20% X 10.0%
6 01/01/97 01/01/08 12 lbs/acre X 40.0%
7 06/01/00 01/01/04 12 lbs/acre X 10.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $126,000
Fringe $ 40,000
Supplies $ 9,000
Operating $ 41,000
Travel $ 5,000
Indirect 20% of all except capital and subcontractors $ 45,500
Subcontractor WDFW & N.W. Marine Tech. $ 30,500
Total Itemized Budget $297,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $297,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $297,000
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

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
USFS labor and materials $ 2,500 unknown
Trout Unlimited labor and materials $ 1,000 unknown
Inland Empire Bass Club labor and materials $ 1,500 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $400,000 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000
Total Outyear Budgets $400,000 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Project has ended a three year enhancement phase. Monitoring and evaluation of the enhancement measures started in 1997 and will continue through 2001. Biological objectives are set for 2003, 2008 and 2016.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Ashe, B.L., K.L. Lillengreen, J.J. Vella, L.O. Clark, S. Graves, M.R, Barber, G.J.Nenema, Jr., and A.T. Scholz. 1991. Assessment of the fishery improvement opportunities on the Pend Oreille River. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center. No
Barber, M.R., B.L. Renberg, J.J. Vella, A.T. Scholz, K.L. Woodward and S. Graves. 1990. Assessment of the fisheries improvement opportunities on the Pend Oreille River. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Center, Annual Report 1990. No
Bennett, D.H. and M. Liter. 1991. Water quality, fish and wildlife characteristics of Box Canyon Reservoir, Washington. Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences University of Idaho, Section 3. No
Bennett, D.H. and J.W. Garrett. 1994. Abundance and habitat use of Box Canyon Resrevoir, Pend Oreille River, Washingtion and tributaries by trout with emphasis on brown trout. Completion Report 1992-1993. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Res., College of Forest No
Bonga, D. 1978. Kalispel Indians: A fishing tribe. Kalispel Tribe internal report. No
Espinosa, A. 1988. Clearwater Stream Survey Methodology. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho. No
Hillman, T.W. and W.S. Platts. 1993. Survey plan to detect the presence of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Prepared for Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Coeur d' Alene, ID by Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID. No
Hunter, C.J. 1991. Better trout habitat: A guide to stream restoration and management. Island Press, Washington D. C. No
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA/910/9-91-001. Developed for Region 10, US Environmental Protection Agency. College of No
Murphy, P. and C.W. Huntington. 1995. Updated Stream Survey Methodology for the Clearwater National Forest. Internal Document. Clearwater National Forest.Orfino, Idaho. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 94-55. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1995. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Resident Fish and Wildlife Amendments 95-20. No
Kalispel Natural Resource Department and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Kalispel Resident Fish Project Annual Report. Report to U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Contract number No
Kalispel Natural Resource Department and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Kalispel Resident Fish Project Annual Report. Report to U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Contract number No
Kalispel Natural Resource Department. 1997. Fish and wildlife management plan. No
Kalispel Natural Resource Department. 1997. Stream survey methodology. 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:
Fund in part
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part. Fund objectives related to habitat restoration and monitoring of naturally producing bass. Do not fund bass supplementation objectives (40%), considering the general abandonment of this as ineffective in most parts of the country and the potential effectiveness of creating over-winter habitat for natural production.

Comments: This was a well prepared and thorough proposal. The FWP and 4 other plans are referenced. There are two other related projects, 9700400 and 9700300. There are clearly two projects wrapped into one here, one on trout in tributaries and the other on largemouth bass in the reservoir. The distinction between the two types of work seems to have been well justified, although the value of each needs to be considered separately. The prospect of supplementing largemouth bass in the reservoir was surprising (considering general abandonment of largemouth bass stocking as ineffective in most other parts of the country). The list of objectives was complete. There is a good pre-and post-enhancement monitoring plan. The objectives, methods, and facilities narratives were good. Based upon the criteria provided for evaluation, the proposal is technically sound. It is one of the few with clearly stated and measurable objectives. Also, methods are concisely related to objectives. Relationship to other projects and budget sections are a bit weak. Nonetheless, when taken on balance, this project proposal is above average.

Nonetheless, the review team had a number of problems with specific aspects of this project. First is the enhancement project for salmonid fishes in the tributaries. These may be effective in terms of increasing abundance in the short term, but do not do much to enhance long term population viability. It appears the populations are all highly isolated from each other and, thus in the long term highly susceptible to extinction from a variety of potential causes. The proposer did not adequately explain why these populations should be protected and enhanced. Sustainability of small trout populations in tributaries is questionable, likely leading to perpetual supplementation.

Next is the bass supplementation program. Philosophically the group was in support of efforts to assess and enhance habitats for native species and not enthusiastic about enhancing and supplementing largemouth bass populations. It does not appear that bass spawning habitat is limited, so it is not clear why the habitat improvements are not conducted first to see if natural reproduction is capable of sustaining a viable fishery. It is not clear if hatchery production is to be sustained by a captive broodstock or fish collected from the wild. If the former, the number of adults used is far too small to maintain genetic variation and long term viability. Are they monitoring ecological impacts of bass?

This proposal responds well to the ISRP's FY99 comments, but there continues to be a question regarding the potential conflict between enhancing trout habitat and releasing largemouth bass. The proposers should focus on improving over-winter habitat for naturally producing bass, rather than pursuing bass supplementation. There is too much experience with ineffective (unnecessary) bass supplementation elsewhere in the country to support it here.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$297,000
Comment:

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 long term mitigation plan. They need to clearly explain and justify the milestones.


CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This project is budgeted mostly to run bass hatchery and includes very little habitat restoration. It is probably not a watershed project.

Considerable concern about whether BPA should be involved in introducing or maintaining non-native species. The project benefits bass but it is unclear whether it benefits trout. Proposal does not demonstrate that bass won't impact trout.


ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The proposers provide good citations for success of largemouth bass supplementation elsewhere. On this basis one would assume that their program would have some success. Unfortunately, the cases where supplementation has not been effective (usually just unnecessary because of adequate natural spawning) are not well reported in the literature (stocking programs are just dropped). The effects of fluctuating water levels on spawning success are well documented and these effects may be occurring in this situation. Also, over-wintering success of first year fish can be low in cold climates, which is one reason the published supplementation efforts have often used yearlings for stocking. This may also be occurring there. On balance, the ISRP is willing to accept on the basis of the response that the supplementation project has merit and is worthy of funding as long as a thorough monitoring program attests to its value.

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
$297,000
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:
$429,600
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$429,600
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$429,600
Sponsor (Kalispel Tribe Of Indians) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page