FY 1999 proposal 199404700
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 |
|---|---|
| 199404700 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project |
| Proposal ID | 199404700 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Melo Maiolie |
| Mailing address | 2750 Kathleen Ave. Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814 |
| Phone / email | 2086833054 / mmaiolie@micron.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Pend Oreille |
| Short description | Enhances resident fish populations by changing the winter draw down of Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River and researches other possible mechanisms for fish declines including predation and competition. |
| Target species | bull trout Kamloops rainbow trout kokanee warm water fish |
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 | $90,000 | |
| Fringe | $20,000 | |
| Supplies | $12,000 | |
| Operating | $20,000 | |
| Capital | $30,000 | |
| Travel | $4,000 | |
| Indirect | $70,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $115,000 | |
| $361,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $361,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $361,000 |
| 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: Project requires the cooperation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to change lake levels each winter. Cooperation has been excellent through the first 2 years of study and is expected to be so during the last year of lake level changes in the winter of 1998-99.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable if funds available
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: Lake Pend Oreille is the largest body of water in Idaho and the deepest lake in the county. Cabinet Gorge Dam (Washington Water Power) was built on the inflow and Albeni Falls (Corps) was built on the outflow. Kokanee and bull trout declined after the dams were constructed. The historic kokanee harvest was about 1 million; now it ranges between 100,000 and 200,000 per year. Kokanee are also the main food source for the lake. The Cabinet Gorge kokanee hatchery has operated for 10 years but has not recovered the population. Although it may have stopped the decline, it doesn't provide long-term benefits and is not part of this project. Cabinet Gorge Dam does not have fish passage and kokanee stack up below the dam during the spawning season.Questions/ Answers:
The third Objective deals with increasing warm water fish populations in the Pend Oreille River. What effect does this have on bull trout? Answer: Bull trout do not frequent the Pend Oreille River.
Objective 5 (milfoil control) is 10% of the budget. This is the biggest stumbling block to the project. Why is milfoil control a ratepayer responsibility? Answer: Milfoil monitoring had to be in place in order for the Corps of Engineers to go ahead with the lake level test. IDFG does not want milfoil to invade the lake and is currently documenting and evaluating it.
Was there a change in the existing species assemblage? Answer: There may have been other species introduced into the lake. Bull trout declined in the 1950's and may not be harvested from Lake Pend Oreille.
What are the outyear projections for this project? Answer: This is a 5-year project – 3 years of high winter lake levels followed by 2 years of low winter lake levels. This may not be long enough to really determine if the lake level test significantly improved kokanee spawning and populations.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: No. The ratepayers are not responsible for milfoil control. Not convinced that spawning habitat is the limiting factor. The project includes studying food web dynamics and mysis shrimp as well as winter higher lake levels
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
Comment:
Comment:
This proposal is clearly written and for needed research. The monitoring methods are well described, especially the food web studies, but the model should be described in greater detail. The project should be for a longer time (e.g., 10 years) to allow better determination of fish population changes (trends) and their possible correlation with lake factors.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: |
| $526,511 | $526,511 | $526,511 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website