FY 2000 proposal 199500100

Additional documents

199500100 Narrative Narrative
199500100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleKalispel Tribe Resident Fish
Proposal ID199500100
OrganizationKalispel Tribe of Indians (KNRD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJoseph Maroney
Mailing addressP.O. Box 39 Usk, WA 99180
Phone / email5094451147 / jmaroney@knrd.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinInter-Mountain / Pend Oreille
Short descriptionAssess 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 speciesbull trout, westslope cutthroat and largemouth bass
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

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 IDTitleDescription
9700400 Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Information exchange/equipment sharing/blocked area coordination.
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.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
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.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund in part
Jun 15, 1999


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.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


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.

Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


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.

Oct 29, 1999


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.
Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$429,600 $429,600 $429,600

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website