FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199104600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

The change from the FY'00 estimate reflects costs for purchase of a fork lift @ $15,000, engineering and design for scoping new well and water conveyance system for construction in 2002 @ $10,000, maintenance for degrading facility structure which includes painting and replacing water damaged floor @ $5,000 and the dredging of the settling pond and surface water collection site currently filled in with nutrient and natural sediment @ $15,000.

Reason for change in scope

No major changes goals, objectives or tasks.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Depending on funding sought through the All-H process, this project may seek funding for performing a feasibility study of utilizing spawning channels and streamside incubation, rearing and release to enhance natural producing kokanee salmon in Lake Roosevelt. Estimated intial cost is $20K.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This proposal provides a useful umbrella-like summary of the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin goals and objectives and how each of 8 projects fits into the big picture, (a) Galbraith Springs (this proposal), the Sherman Creek Hatchery, and net pen rearing of fish in Lake Roosevelt, (b) Lake Roosevelt Evaluation, (c) Lake Roosevelt Habitat and passage improvement, (d) Chief Joseph Enhancement Project, (e) Phalon Lake Wild Rainbow, (f) Ford Hatchery, (g) Banks Lake Monitoring and Evaluation, and (h) Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

The project needs to integrate results from M&E project to evaluate its own success (as previously implied in the last one of the FY00 ISRP comments). The project seems to depend too much on M&E from the LRFEP; it should get data from LRFEP, apply it in adaptive management, and show how it is doing this. A summary of results, from an annual report, ought to be part of the proposal. Scientific soundness depends on the data produced. Cost-effectiveness of hatchery operation should be assessed via data on rate of return to the creel.

Some statements would be improved if supported by references, e.g., on p. 6, last paragraph last sentence: "This technique is used in British Columbia where naturally producing kokanee are supplements with artificial production." Where can we read about that—and its results? Same problem at end of first paragraph on p. 8.

In kokanee and rainbow trout HGMPs' sections 2.3, the claim is made that "Lake Roosevelt fisheries specifically benefits [sic] from this program by increased harvest and alleviation of fishing pressure on limited naturally producing populations" (emphasis added). Are there data to substantiate such "alleviation"? Might not the opposite be occurring via the effect that stocking can have in stimulating overharvest of less numerous natural stocks in mixed-stock situations?

Should kokanee HGMP section 2.5 cover the interactions of stocked kokanee with naturally-reproducing kokanee?

Rainbow trout HGMP section 2.4, paragraph 8 pertains only to kokanee, therefore does not belong in this HGMP. The paragraph is identical to one in the kokanee HGMP. Indeed, the whole section 2.4 are the same in both HGMPs—as are some other sections and paragraphs. Much of the boilerplating is probably unwarranted.

Question: Has the staff contemplated whether the hatchery will be needed forever, especially if the entrainment deterrent system works at the dam?

Question: Is it mostly shoreline spawning of kokanee that is affected by drawdowns or are the tributaries also affected? (see bottom of p. 3).

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal provides a useful umbrella-like summary of the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin goals and objectives and how each of eight projects fits into the big picture, (a) Galbraith Springs (this proposal), the Sherman Creek Hatchery, and net pen rearing of fish in Lake Roosevelt, (b) Lake Roosevelt Evaluation, (c) Lake Roosevelt Habitat and passage improvement, (d) Chief Joseph Enhancement Project, (e) Phalon Lake Wild Rainbow, (f) Ford Hatchery, (g) Banks Lake Monitoring and Evaluation, and (h) Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

The project needs to integrate results from M&E project to evaluate its own success (as previously implied in the last one of the FY00 ISRP comments). The project seems to depend too much on M&E from the LRFEP; it should get data from LRFEP, apply it in adaptive management, and show how it is doing this. A summary of results, from an annual report, ought to be part of the proposal. Scientific soundness depends on the data produced. Cost-effectiveness of hatchery operation should be assessed via data on rate of return to the creel.

Some statements would be improved if supported by references, e.g., on p. 6, last paragraph last sentence: "This technique is used in British Columbia where naturally producing kokanee are supplements with artificial production." Where can we read about that—and its results? Same problem at end of first paragraph on p. 8.

In kokanee and rainbow trout HGMPs' sections 2.3, the claim is made that "Lake Roosevelt fisheries specifically benefits [sic] from this program by increased harvest and alleviation of fishing pressure on limited naturally producing populations" (emphasis added). Are there data to substantiate such "alleviation"? Might not the opposite be occurring via the effect that stocking can have in stimulating overharvest of less numerous natural stocks in mixed-stock situations?

Should kokanee HGMP section 2.5 cover the interactions of stocked kokanee with naturally-reproducing kokanee?

Rainbow trout HGMP section 2.4, paragraph 8 pertains only to kokanee, therefore does not belong in this HGMP. The paragraph is identical to one in the kokanee HGMP. Indeed, the whole section 2.4 are the same in both HGMPs—as are some other sections and paragraphs. Much of the boilerplating is probably unwarranted.

Question: Has the staff contemplated whether the hatchery will be needed forever, especially if the entrainment deterrent system works at the dam?

Question: Is it mostly shoreline spawning of kokanee that is affected by drawdowns or are the tributaries also affected? (see bottom of p. 3).

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website