FY 1999 proposal 198503800
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 198503800 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Colville Hatchery |
| Proposal ID | 198503800 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kirk Truscott |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096348845 / cctfish@mail.wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Produce 22,679 kg (50,000 lbs ) of resident salmonids for distribution to reservation waters in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/ recreational fishery as partial mitigation for anadromous fish losses above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. |
| Target species | rainbow trout brook trout lahontan cutthroat trout cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $131,614 | |
| Fringe | $34,220 | |
| Operating | $106,000 | |
| Capital | $30,000 | |
| Travel | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | $51,592 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $360,426 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $360,426 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $360,426 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: (1) The percent cost per objective is based upon current cooperation with other BPA funded projects implemented by the Tribe, Project personnel from BIA and Tribal funded Programs, if cooperation ceases to occur many of the objectives will not be met. (2) Increased process in the Power Council?s Program will decrease time spent implementing the project.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: This project provides resident fish substitution for anadromous fish losses caused by Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. The objective of the hatchery is to produce rainbow trout (4 stocks), brook trout, and Lahontan trout to sustain a tribal subsistence and recreational fishery. BPA has a 25-year obligation to fund 100% of the hatchery operation and maintenance. Livestock, timber and power production depleted the native species and had a dramatic impact on the tribes. The reservation now has 2 native stocks remaining; 1) an adfluvial rainbow trout stock in the San Poil River; and 2) a kokanee stock that is a derivative of sockeye. The hatchery doesn't stock hatchery fish on top of native fish.Questions/Answers: Do brook trout get into Lake Roosevelt? Answer: Brook trout are not native to the area and have been on the reservation since 1913. They could get into Lake Roosevelt but the habitat isn't suitable and there are no known bull trout in the reservoir.
Are westslope cutthroat trout native? Answer: Yes. We are stocking Lahotan cutthroat trout in one highly alkaline lake.
The catch-per-unit-effort goals seem high. Are you achieving them? Answer: No – except for a few months. They may need to be re-evaluated.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
Comment:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Lake Roosevelt Hatchery Proposals - Inadequate as a set
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a well-written and clearly argued proposal, but the ISRP found the proposal not to be biologically supportable. The proposed use of non-native fish stocks is not biologically justified and is in conflict with restoration and maintenance of Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Although the proposal states the reasons that non-native stocks have been chosen for use in establishing naturally-producing populations, some of these proposed stocks have been shown to be harmful to bull trout and other native species. The Council’s FWP prioritizes the use and protection of native stocks. Even the "native" stocks listed in the proposal are "naturalized" non-native species. The proposal provides a good context of why a hatchery is beneficial to recovery efforts, but it does not adequately address ecosystem interactions.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $870,580 | $870,580 | $870,580 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website