Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199501100

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project
BPA Project Proposal Number 199501100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Colville Confederated Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) CCT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Richard LeCaire
Mailing Address P.O. Box 150
City, State, Zip Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone 5096342124
Fax 5096342126
E-mail
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Inter-Mountain
Subbasin Columbia Upper
 
Short Description This is a stock assessment project, specifically to determine the stock status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee. High entrainment rates are suspected through Grand Coulee Dam. An hydroacoustic assessment
Target Species Natural Production Kokanee, all other incidental species as encountered.


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 1994, NPPC Project No.10 8B 7
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): resident


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1995 Collected field data, compiled report to BPA
1996 Conducted field assessment of juvenile productio, adult spawner returns, gill net survey and hydroacoustic monitoring of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam
1997 Same as above
1998 Same as Above


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9432148 Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Coordination of Sampling and data sharing No
9001800 Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Habitat/Passage Improvement Project Coordinate manpower and equipment needs, share data and aide in development of reports. No
8503800 Colville Tribal Trout Hatchery Program Equipment sharing. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Stock Status determination of natural production kokanee withing study area. A. Determine spawning escapement by trap and release methods for adult kokanee at all known spawnig sites using picket fence weirs, helicopter, foot and scuba survey techniques.
1. B. Locate and assess all other possible sites.
2. Determine contribution of natural production kokanee to fishery A. Conduct egg to fry survival study using redd cpping devices and rotary screw trap at appropriate loctions.
3. Determine genetic status and strength of natural production kokanee in study area and assess possible impacts by hatchery production A. Collect spawned out kokanee carcasses from all Lake Roosevelt and Rufus Woods tributaries.
3. B. Collect kokanee samples from British Columbia water.
3. C. Contract for electrophoretic protein analysis to determine baseline blueprint of natural production kokanee
3. D. Compare genetic blueprint of samples stocks to natural production from all areas and determine impacts by ahtchery production in lakes.
4. Determine rate of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam for all species, and determine probable species composition of entrained population. A. Conduct hydroacoustic survey at turbine intakes at Grand Coulle Dam using services of experienced hydroacoustic contracting firm.
4. B. Determine specific hydropower operation responsible for entrainment (Power peaking, flood control or firm power committments).
4. C. Conduct weekly gill net survey in forebay of dam using vertical and horizontal net arrays to determine species composition of entrained species.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/00 09/01/98 Determination of natural production spawning escapement Annual escpement figures 132.0%
2 10/01/00 09/01/98 Determine natural production component contribution to fishery by egg to survival studies. Annual contribution to fishery by natural production stocks. 60.0%
3 10/01/00 09/01/98 Determine genetic make-up of natural production kokanee for possible inclusion into current hatchery operations Continued genetic profile for all spawning kokanee within blocked area. 37.0%
4 10/01/00 09/01/98 Determine entrainment rate of all fish through Grand Coulle dam and pinpoint operation responsible for possible later remedies. Annual report citing entrainment totals by powerhouse, turbine, diel and monthly periods. Identification of hydropower operation responsible for highest entrainment. 0.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 98,400
Fringe $ 27,552
Supplies $ 19,456
Travel Travel/Perdiem/mileage reimbursement/training/boat expense $ 29,052
Indirect $ 38,573
Subcontractor BioSonics Inc. Seattle Wa. Hydroacoustic survey $370,520
Subcontractor Gyar’s Flight Service, Cheney, WA Aerial Survey $ 5,400
Subcontractor University of Montana, Missoula Mt. Genetic analysis $ 7,800
Total Itemized Budget $596,753


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $596,753
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $596,753
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003
All Phases $600,000 $600,000 $350,000
Total Outyear Budgets $600,000 $600,000 $350,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: High water years cause trapping problems, flood events, and destroy sites and equipment. Large water regimes cause spill episones that are essential;l un-monitored. Currently, the project is a single drum gate (eight tolat) where spill takes place in high water years.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Allendorf, F. W. and M. Ferguson. 1990. Genetics, Methods for Fish Biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. No
Beckman, L. G., et. al.. 1985. Assessment of the Fisheries and Limnology in Lake F. D. Roosevelt 1980-83. Final Report, 1985. U.S.F.W. Service, Seattle National Fishery Research Center, Willard Substation. Prep for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. FWS-14-06-0 No
Brannon, E. et. al.. 1994. University of Idaho Genetic Analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka: Life History and Genetic Analysis of Redfish Lake (Oncorhynchus nerka). U. S Dept of Energy. BPA. Portland, Oregon. No
Carlson, T. J. et. al. 1980. Hydroacoustic Assessment of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steelhead at Priest Rapids Dam in 1980. Grant Co P.U.D. Contract No. 403-148. No
Cash, Kelly. 1996. National Park Service, Coulee Dam National Recreation Area Supt. Retired. Personnel Communication No
Dotson, Thurston. 1993. Letter to University of Montana. Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena Mt. No
Earnest, D.E., Spence, M.E. et.al. 1965. A survey of the fish populations, zooplankton, bottom fauna and some physical characteristics of Lake Roosevelt.. Internal Report. Washington Department of Game, Olympia Wa. No
Fraley, J.J. et. al. 1986. Emergence Trap and Holding Bottle for Capture of Salmonid fry in Streams.. N.A. Journal of Fisheries Management 6:119-121. No
Griffith, J.R., A.C. McDowell and A.T. Scholz. 1991. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries monitoring program. Annual Report 1990. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 88-63 by Upper Columbia United Tribes Fishery Research Center, Department of Bi No
Hisata, John. 1995. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication. No
Hunter, J. G.. 1948. A Weir for Adult and Salmon Fry Effective Under Conditions of Extremely Variable Run-Off. Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Nanaimo, B. C. No
LeBerg, P. L.. 1990. Influence of Genetic Variability on Population Growth: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Fish Biology 37 (SuppA) 193-195. No
Levy, D. A. 1991. Acoustic Analysis of Diel Vertical Migration Behavior of Mysis relicta and kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) within Lake Okanogan, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 48: 17-72 No
Marino, D. A. 1986. Dual-Beam Hydroacoustic Assessment of Kokanee Salmon Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Abundance in Three Pacific Northwest Lakes. Abstract from Masters Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle Wa. No
McDowell, A.C. and J.R. Griffith. 1993. Retrospective Analysis on the Fishery of Lake Roosevelt Wa. Final Report 1993. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Grand Coulee Wa. by Spokane Tribal Fish and Wildlife Center, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Wel No
Meekin, T. K. 1992. Spring Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys of the Methow River and Okanogan River Basin. Yakima Indian Nation Fisheries Resource Management. Yakima Wa. No
Mullan, J. W. 1986. Determinants of Sockeye Salmon Abundance in the Columbia River, 1880's-1982.: A review and Synthesis. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Report 86(12). No
Nigro, A. A., et. al. 1982. Assessment of the Fisheries and Limnology in Lake F. D. Roosevelt. Annual Report. U. S. F. W. Service. Seattle National Fishery Research Center, Grand Coulee Substation. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. FWS-14-06-0009-904. No
Parkinson, E. A. et. al. 1994. Comparison of Acoustic and Trawl Methods for Estimating Density and Age Composition of Kokanee. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 123: 841-854. No
Peone, T. L. et. al. 1989. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Monitoring Program. Annual Report. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Research Center. Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney Wa. 99004 No
Sage, G. T. 1995 . Letter to Thurston Dotson on Electrophoretic Genetic Analysis of Kokanee Salmon. No
Scholz, A.T. et. al. 1985. Fish Surveys on the Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt. Winter/Spring 1984. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Research Center. Technical Report No.5. Eastern Washington University, Cheney Wa. 99004. No
Steig, T. W. et. al. 1995. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Spill for By-Passing Juvenile Salmon and Steelhead at Rocky Reach Dam in Spring of 1994. Prepared for Chelan Co. P.U.D. by Hydroacoustic Technology Inc of Seattle. No
Stober, Q. J., et. al. 1977. Preliminary Survey of Fisheries resources in the forebay of FDR Reservoir 1976-77. Annual Report. College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. University of Washington, Seattle, Wa. FRI-UW7701. No
Wydoski, R. L and R. A. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London No
Marino, D. A. 1986. Dual-Beam Hydroacoustic Assessment of Kokanee Salmon Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Abundance in Three Pacific Northwest Lakes. Abstract from Masters Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle Wa. No
McDowell, A.C. and J.R. Griffith. 1993. Retrospective Analysis on the Fishery of Lake Roosevelt Wa. Final Report 1993. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Grand Coulee Wa. by Spokane Tribal Fish and Wildlife Center, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Wel No
Meekin, T. K. 1992. Spring Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys of the Methow River and Okanogan River Basin. Yakima Indian Nation Fisheries Resource Management. Yakima Wa. No
Mullan, J. W. 1986. Determinants of Sockeye Salmon Abundance in the Columbia River, 1880's-1982.: A review and Synthesis. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Report 86(12). No
Nigro, A. A., et. al. 1982. Assessment of the Fisheries and Limnology in Lake F. D. Roosevelt. Annual Report. U. S. F. W. Service. Seattle National Fishery Research Center, Grand Coulee Substation. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. FWS-14-06-0009-904. No
Parkinson, E. A. et. al. 1994. Comparison of Acoustic and Trawl Methods for Estimating Density and Age Composition of Kokanee. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 123: 841-854. No
Peone, T. L. et. al. 1989. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Monitoring Program. Annual Report. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Research Center. Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney Wa. 99004 No
Sage, G. T. 1995 . Letter to Thurston Dotson on Electrophoretic Genetic Analysis of Kokanee Salmon. No
Scholz, A.T. et. al. 1985. Fish Surveys on the Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt. Winter/Spring 1984. Upper Columbia United Tribes Fisheries Research Center. Technical Report No.5. Eastern Washington University, Cheney Wa. 99004. No
Steig, T. W. et. al. 1995. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Spill for By-Passing Juvenile Salmon and Steelhead at Rocky Reach Dam in Spring of 1994. Prepared for Chelan Co. P.U.D. by Hydroacoustic Technology Inc of Seattle. No
Stober, Q. J., et. al. 1977. Preliminary Survey of Fisheries resources in the forebay of FDR Reservoir 1976-77. Annual Report. College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. University of Washington, Seattle, Wa. FRI-UW7701. No
Wydoski, R. L and R. A. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London No
Wydoski, R. L and R. A. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. Proposal is technically inadequate. However, the topic is important question for the region; BPA should develop an RFP.

Comments: This project has two major elements, stock assessment and assessment of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam. In many respects, this project is the keystone for justifying the extensive artificial production of fish for stocking in Lake Roosevelt. The proposal is not well prepared, does not express its objectives well, and cannot be recommended for funding. CBFWA notes that the project is not cost effective, and that it has already fulfilled its objectives. The work is related to the FWP and to 3 other projects for coordination of sampling, staff, data, and equipment. Only administrative accomplishments are presented, and the narrative states that no biological opinions have been reached. Many typos in the proposal suggest hasty and sloppy work, which may be indicative of the approach to the project. There is no cost sharing. The project description seems to be an odd mix of subjects, the rationale is vague, and no project history is given. Notwithstanding a large budget for subcontracted work, no information is provided on the research to be done under the subcontract (experimental design, etc.). The reviewers can only conclude that the proposal is not based on sound scientific principles.

The reviewers agreed that the proposal is unacceptable as a statement of work to be done, even if it seems to be important work. The entrainment estimates may be the key to the whole Lake Roosevelt hatchery and stocking program. The fundamental question is whether it is better to allow entrainment and continually restock fish (at considerable perpetual cost to BPA) or to reduce the entrainment. There are techniques available for reducing entrainment of kokanee in the discharges of large storage dams (e.g., strobe lights demonstrated in Lake Pend Oreille and at Dworshak). Also, it appears that an assemblage of poorly related work was developed to fit a monetary amount rather than having costs track a set of well-justified work to be done. The proposal needs better description of what is to be analyzed. Subcontract work needs to be included as an integral part of the proposal (objectives, methods, etc.).

The work seems especially important, and if the present project organization and staff cannot do a proper job, then funding of another organization to do it might be considered.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$397,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: no-This already fulfilled it's objectives. The proposal is poorly written and tasks & accomplishments as well as objectives are not well presented.

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-Most of the objectives are really tasks and not true milestones.

General comments: This is not cost effective.


ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Do not fund. The proposal continues to be inadequate with respect to plans for meeting those objectives that have not been met or have only partly been met. However, the work is important and plans should be made for development of a scientifically sound study. The response was helpful, but the proposers still do not seem to understand that the description of their work in their proposal, not their understanding of it, determines whether the ISRP recommends funding. Defense of incompleteness of the proposal and continuing statements that no biological conclusions (even interim) need to be presented are still unacceptable. Clearly, interim conclusions have been drawn because, for example, focus of the entrainment study has shifted to the third powerhouse. The response amplifies the ISRP's statement that the work is important. Information is presented in the response that shows that there is, indeed, more work to be done to accomplish the stated objectives. The subcontracts are explained (although it was not necessary to reproduce the genetics reports). More information in the response would have been helpful to demonstrate progress at establishing a relationship between entrainment and the annual drawdown cycle and its timing. The discussion of potential strobe light application at Grand Coulee was helpful and indicative of the thinking that the ISRP was suggesting, but the comparisons among reservoirs was not germane unless the authors believe that reservoir size is important to fish behavior at the outlets (more explanation is then needed).

The present study design makes no mention of how they will assess the significance of entrainment relative to the total population. Is there a creel survey? Suppose the hydroacoustic methods were successful in estimating the total number of kokanee entrained. What portion of the total population does that represent? Is it a large percentage or small? We understand there may be some marked kokanee present in the fishery, resulting from releases of fish reared in net pens. Would it not be possible to develop a total population estimate, knowing the number of kokanee released and the percentage they make up of the catch (in a sample of the catch)?


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Review further
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
(16) Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project; CCT; Project ID # 9501100; CBFWA 00 Rec. $396,753

Discussion/Background: This project has two major elements, (1) stock assessment, and (2) an assessment of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam. Specifically, this project is designed to determine the stock status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee. High entrainment rates are suspected through Grand Coulee Dam. The stock assessment work seems especially important. The status of naturally producing kokanee, spawning escapement, genetic analysis of populations and natural production strength for weak unique wild stocks are crucial. Collection of this data is underway, but not yet complete Regarding the entrainment issue, the Colville Tribe has indicated that a report containing hydroacoustic data is due from their subcontractor at the end of December. The tribe requests 90 days after the data is provided in order to conduct an analysis of entrainment totals by powerhouse, turbine, diel and monthly periods. Identification of the hydropower operation responsible for the highest entrainment will also be included. In their report, the tribe will address ISRP questions regarding the significance of entrainment relative to the total population, as identified in the second review, to the extent possible. The hydroacoustic analysis report is to be submitted to the Council in March. A study design for the strobe light and fish behavior work should be submitted to the Council by June 15th, and subsequently reviewed by the ISAB or ISRP.

ISRP Review: Do not fund (both reviews). The ISRP states, "The proposal continues to be inadequate with respect to plans for meeting those objectives that have not been met or have only partly been met. However, the work is important and plans should be made for development of a scientifically sound study.

Sponsor Policy Response: The Colville Confederated Tribes responded to 4 of the overriding policy issue criteria: Criteria "b" and "c": The project is an adopted program measure (measure 10.8B.7) and provides data and analysis that address elements identified in measure 10.8B.8. Entrainment of 300,000-800,000 fish annually undoubtedly impacts the fishery in Lake Roosevelt and puts at risk the effectiveness of mitigation measures for anadromous fish losses in the "blocked area" (resident fish substitution). Criteria "d": Not funding the Chief Joseph Kokanee Project also represents a significant and immediate risk to the wild "unique" stock of kokanee identified in the San Poil and Nespelem drainages and jeopardizes existing fisheries opportunities in Lake Roosevelt. The existing project funds support two important project objectives, including monitoring adult spawner escapement and genetic evaluation of the free ranging reservoir and tributary populations of kokanee. Criteria "e": In addition to the potential loss of a wild kokanee stock and risk to the overall Lake Roosevelt fishery, a unique funding opportunity exists to address the entrainment issue at Grand Coulee. As a result of entrainment estimates at Grand Coulee and direction by the ISRP, the Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation have collaborated in the development of a pilot strobe light study at Grand Coulee.

Council Recommendation: The Colville Confederated Tribe has been working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the USGS, WDFW, and the Spokane Tribe to secure cost sharing for the strobe light study. The cost share opportunity over a three-year period may contribute close to $1million dollars to this effort. Because of the appropriations process, the Bureau and USGS contribution will not be available until 2002 and is earmarked for the strobe light application at Grand Coulee. It is imperative that the preliminary baseline data be in place to take full advantage of the cost share opportunity.

The Council recommends funding for the stock assessment work, which includes field investigation elements such as stock status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee. Fund the hydroacoustics analysis report, to include the ISRP questions, with the report due at the end of March. Fund CCT participation in the development of the strobe light/fish behavior study design due on June 15th. Fund training for CCT staff on the fish tracking system. Total recommended funding is $317,057.

The Council recommends that the Corps, Bureau and Bonneville, in conjunction with a Council staff member, work to identify if a funding mechanism for a Bureau of Reclamation project can be found for available dollars in the capital construction budget category. For Fiscal Year 2000, capital expenses for a sonic tracking system and 20 sonic tags is expected to cost about $104,000. For Fiscal Year 2000, fund the capital expense from the capital budget category, if possible. If a mechanism for funding cannot be found, the Council will consider funding from the direct program. The Council is willing to consider funding for this project because the ISRP and sponsor indicate that the time to do the work is now, the ISRP states that the work is important, and because of the cost-share opportunity. ISRP concerns will need to be addressed at all applicable decision-making stages.

The Council encourages the sponsor to address the ISRP concerns, whatever budget category provides funds. Should the Council need to ultimately recommend direct program funds, it will require that the sponsor adequately address the ISRP's criticisms of the project. The Council is relying upon the ISRP's statement regarding the importance of the proposed work in its decision to keep a recommendation for direct program funding open as a possibility.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$317,057
Comment:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund kokanee stock assessment and hydroacoustics analysis report

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$1,371,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$1,371,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$1,371,000
Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page