FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200722100: Native Trout Restoration in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee Subbasins

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized violaaev@dfw.wa.gov Viola

Proposal Type: New
Proposal Number: 200722100
Proposal Name: Native Trout Restoration in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee Subbasins
Agency, Institution or Organization: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short Description: Recovery to naturally sustainable levels of native resident trout populations in portions of the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee watersheds. Investigate small tributaries including high lakes where invasive species threaten native trout populations.
Information Transfer: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. SASI (Salmonid Stock Inventory), appendix Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia, WA. WDFW agency reports. Possibly as a peer reviewed article.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
violaaev@dfw.wa.gov Viola WDFW 3860 Chelan Hwy.
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Ph: (509) 665-3337
Fax: (509) 662-0490
Email: violaaev@dfw.wa.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: None Selected ARG Province: Columbia Cascade
Sponsor Subbasin: None Selected ARG Subbasin: Methow
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Projects may be located in the Wenatchee, Methow or Entiat subbasins. The following are examples , Washington None Selected No
048 28 34.75 N 120 13 6.49 W Creek Methow River, Sec 4 T35 R20, this area is a spring fed creek that feeds into the Methow from a series of beaver ponds. , Washington Methow No
048 22 0.71N 120 10 25.48W River 1) Twisp River, Sec 9 T33 R21, this area is just below the Elbow Coulee Road on the Twisp River. , Washington Methow No
048 25 1.07 N 120 07 59.80 W River Methow River, Sec 30 T35 R21, this is an area on the Heath Ranch which is partly owned by WDFW. , Washington Methow No
048-03-20.69 N 120-42-o8.75 W Lake Myrtle Lake, located in the upper Entiat River drainage in the Wenatchee National Forest (T30N, R17E Section 34). Chelan, Washington Entiat Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Bull Trout
Westslope Cutthroat

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199101903 Hungry Horse Mitigation/Habita Similar project; template for methodology.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
[BO Title left blank] [BO Description left blank] Methow Section 5.7.4 Objective 2 Strategy 6 in the Management Plan page 365
[BO Title left blank] [BO Description left blank] Entiat "Reduction in exotic species will increase survival of steelhead, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Middle and Upper Entiat" Biological objectives 1. Eliminate or reduce impacts of eastern brook trout and hatchery rainbow trout by 2025. 195, 196
[BO Title left blank] [BO Description left blank] None For Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins, Develop a multi-agency approved process for a brook trout removal program in bull trout core areas. Sal Rec Plan
Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data on appropriate habitat parameters, including but not limited to in-stream-flow, gradient, water quality (eg temperature, DO, pH, conductivity), substrate, bank morphology, and geology. None Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins [Page No blank]
Objective 2. Identify threats to native species Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. Identify potential for predation and competition. Task 2.3 Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. None Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins [Page No blank]
Objective 3. Design/plan management actions Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. None Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins [Page No blank]
Objective 4. Implement management actions Prepare permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. None Obj 1-4 apply to projects developed in Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins [Page No blank]

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Remove or Relocate Non-predaceous Animals Task 4.2 Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. Construct barrier(s), improve channel or substrate, and remove invasive species. 6/3/2008 9/30/2010 $94,479
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Implement management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Task 4.1 Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. 6/3/2008 9/30/2010 $70,479
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Implement management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Task 4.1 Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. Obtain permits, conduct public education, and obtain interagency agreements. 6/3/2008 9/30/2010 $70,479
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Implement management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Other Task 4.3 Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. Design/plan post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions. 6/3/2008 9/30/2010 $70,480
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Implement management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Identify and Select Projects Task 3.1 Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. Task 3.1 Identify potential sites for habitat enhancements, particularly barriers to the recurring or further spread of invasive species. 4/3/2008 6/3/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Design/plan management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Identify and Select Projects Task 3.2 Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. Identify potential methods for removal of invasive species (electrofishing and/or chemical rehabilitation), and possibly capturing native species for re-introduction. 4/3/2008 6/3/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Design/plan management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Outreach and Education Task 3.3 Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. Conduct public scoping; investigate inter-agency cooperative agreements or other assistance dependent on those management actions identified. 4/2/2008 6/2/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Design/plan management actions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Task 2.1 Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. Identify hybrid populations and hybridization sites. 10/2/2007 4/2/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Identify threats to native species
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Task 2.2 Identify potential for predation and competition. Identify potential for predation and competition between native trout and introduced species. 10/2/2007 4/2/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Identify threats to native species
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Task 2.3 Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. Determine the extent habitat degradation plays in suppressing native species recovery and enhancing invasive species populations. 10/2/2007 4/2/2008 $15,355
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Identify threats to native species
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Task 1.1 Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. Establish baseline data on all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation. Identify and quantify where possible. 10/1/2006 10/1/2007 $89,446
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Task 1.2 Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data of habitat parameters Establish quantitative and qualitative baseline data , including but not limited to in-stream-flow, gradient, water quality (eg temperature, DO, pH, conductivity), substrate, bank morphology, and geology. 10/1/2006 10/1/2007 $89,446
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Assess conditions in tributaries
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel Biologist 2 $46,335 $47,725 $49,157
Personnel Scientific Technicain 2 $34,506 $35,541 $36,607
Fringe Benefits SS, Retire. Medicare 11.35% per employee, L and I (medical aid $126.00 per month per employee, Personal services 0.6% per employee, Medical benefits per month per employee: $744 $30,540 $31,457 $32,400
Travel Mileage, per annum (avg 300 miles/mo @ .445/mile), Per diem @ $39.00/day (avg 10 days/month/FTE = $390/mo/FTE), Lodging @ $60.00/day (avg 5 days/month/FTE = $300/mo/FTE) $15,990 $16,470 $16,964
Supplies see documents $11,520 $15,866 $32,222
Overhead Indirect @ 28.8% $40,001 $41,201 $42,437
Totals $178,892 $188,260 $209,787

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$576,939
Total Work Element budget$576,939

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
[organization left blank] [provision left blank] $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 In-Kind Under Review
Totals $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$195,480 $201,345 Implement post-action monitoring and evaluation surveys to establish the impacts of management actions relative to current conditions.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
None Post management actions surveys and evaluation will be needed.
 
Final Deliverables
In 1 – 4 pilot projects management actions will eliminate the most important impediments to native fish recovery. Post-action surveys will provide information on the effectiveness of our efforts. Much information will be provided on impediments to native species recovery and protection and the management actions most effective in eliminating these problems. This information provides guidance for future efforts. Baseline data for current habitat conditions and all appropriate species of fish, herptiles, invertebrates, and vegetation for many waters in the Columbia Cascade Province will be generated by this effort; future projects will be identified

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: Columbia Cascade
Subbasin: Methow
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006) [Download letter and table]

BPA's in lieu Rating: 3.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 100%
Status of Cost Share:
Notes: Trout restoration via investigation & invasives management; WDFW authorized/required


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC Comments: Information on the distribution and status of bull and brook trout populations in these subbasins would be very valuable. However, this proposal is very brief and unconvincing; therefore, the ISRP does not recommend funding at this time. The proposal cannot be evaluated unless much more detail is included on the project design and methods. Where will the surveys be conducted and why? How will data on fish populations be collected? How will habitat conditions be assessed? How will data on water quality be collected and analyzed?

Technical and scientific background: The nature of the problem is briefly described. More specific information related to five potential projects listed in the proposal should have been presented to indicate why these had been identified as priority actions.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The relationship of this project to the subbasin plans is briefly described. The lack of data on the distribution and status of bull trout populations hindered the identification and prioritization of projects for bull trout in these plans. Presumably, the survey effort proposed here would provide some of this information.

Relationships to other projects: The relationship of this effort to the Draft Columbia Basin Research Plan is provided but there is very little discussion about the relationship of this project to other BPA, state, or federal efforts to address bull trout. Some discussion of the state and federal efforts, in particular, should be included to place this project in context.

Objectives: The need for better information on the status of headwater bull trout and brook trout populations is clearly a key information gap in these subbasins. Collecting this type of information is a reasonable objective. The inclusion in the proposal of potential projects seems premature. A more logical approach for this effort would be to focus only on collection of the appropriate data to enable prioritization of projects in the future.

It does not appear as though funding for the proposed projects is included in the budget proposal. Other than chemicals for fish eradication, no supplies or equipment that would be used for the possible projects appears in the budget.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: This section is a list of tasks. There is no discussion of methods in the proposal. The type of data to be collected for the status assessment is listed in the objectives but no indication of how these data are to be collected or analyzed is provided. Similarly, there is only very general information provided about the methods to be used in implementing the potential restoration projects.

Monitoring and evaluation: The determination of current status of the fish and habitat is basically an evaluation effort. However, as noted above, very little detail as to how this task will be accomplished is provided. For the potential projects, the proposal simply states that the response to project implementation would be monitored. No specifics are given as to what would be measured or how.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This cannot be fully determined without a more complete description of the methods to be used. Based on the limited information in the proposal, the equipment available and the skills of the personnel appear adequate.

Information transfer: Information transfer is not addressed.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Collecting the information on fish and habitat status would be of value to the focal species. But given the inadequate description of methods, it is impossible to judge the potential for the project to generate useful information. The use of chemical treatment to remove brook trout would have a detrimental impact on co-occurring native species. Collection of the status information should have minor impact.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC Comments: Information on the distribution and status of bull and brook trout populations in these subbasins would be very valuable. However, this proposal is very brief and unconvincing; therefore, the ISRP does not recommend funding at this time. The proposal cannot be evaluated unless much more detail is included on the project design and methods. Where will the surveys be conducted and why? How will data on fish populations be collected? How will habitat conditions be assessed? How will data on water quality be collected and analyzed?

Technical and scientific background: The nature of the problem is briefly described. More specific information related to five potential projects listed in the proposal should have been presented to indicate why these had been identified as priority actions.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The relationship of this project to the subbasin plans is briefly described. The lack of data on the distribution and status of bull trout populations hindered the identification and prioritization of projects for bull trout in these plans. Presumably, the survey effort proposed here would provide some of this information.

Relationships to other projects: The relationship of this effort to the Draft Columbia Basin Research Plan is provided but there is very little discussion about the relationship of this project to other BPA, state, or federal efforts to address bull trout. Some discussion of the state and federal efforts, in particular, should be included to place this project in context.

Objectives: The need for better information on the status of headwater bull trout and brook trout populations is clearly a key information gap in these subbasins. Collecting this type of information is a reasonable objective. The inclusion in the proposal of potential projects seems premature. A more logical approach for this effort would be to focus only on collection of the appropriate data to enable prioritization of projects in the future.

It does not appear as though funding for the proposed projects is included in the budget proposal. Other than chemicals for fish eradication, no supplies or equipment that would be used for the possible projects appears in the budget.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: This section is a list of tasks. There is no discussion of methods in the proposal. The type of data to be collected for the status assessment is listed in the objectives but no indication of how these data are to be collected or analyzed is provided. Similarly, there is only very general information provided about the methods to be used in implementing the potential restoration projects.

Monitoring and evaluation: The determination of current status of the fish and habitat is basically an evaluation effort. However, as noted above, very little detail as to how this task will be accomplished is provided. For the potential projects, the proposal simply states that the response to project implementation would be monitored. No specifics are given as to what would be measured or how.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This cannot be fully determined without a more complete description of the methods to be used. Based on the limited information in the proposal, the equipment available and the skills of the personnel appear adequate.

Information transfer: Information transfer is not addressed.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Collecting the information on fish and habitat status would be of value to the focal species. But given the inadequate description of methods, it is impossible to judge the potential for the project to generate useful information. The use of chemical treatment to remove brook trout would have a detrimental impact on co-occurring native species. Collection of the status information should have minor impact.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.