FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199404300: Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program (formerly Data Collection)

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Deanne Pavlik-Kunkel

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199404300
Proposal Name: Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program (formerly Data Collection)
BPA Project Manager: Jonathan McCloud
Agency, Institution or Organization: Spokane Tribe
Short Description: The primary task of the LRFEP is to monitor the performance of the Lake Roosevelt hatchery programs. Other tasks included assessing hydro-operations and other factors that may impact hatchery and native fish and reservoir productivity.
Information Transfer: The goal of the Lake Roosevelt artificial production program is to develop subsistence and recreational kokanee salmon and rainbow/redband trout fisheries for Tribes and visitors to Lake Roosevelt, as well as develop a self-sustaining kokanee fishery. The LRFEP monitors and evaluates the hatchery program and assesses effects on the Lake Roosevelt fishery and ecology. The information gathered by this program will be used to guide management decisions for the Lake Roosevelt fishery through development of recommendations to the Hatchery Coordination Team and updates to the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Guiding Document. These data will be compiled into databases, analyzed and synthesized into annual reports and peer reviewed journal publications. The data will be housed in LRFEP databases and will be transferred to the Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dam Project (BPA 1997-004-00) database.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Deanne Pavlik-Kunkel Spokane Tribe of Indians Alex Sherwood Bldg., Main St. P.O. Box 100
Wellpinit WA 99040
Ph: 509.258.7020
Fax: 509.258.9600
Email: deannep@spokanetribe.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Deanne Pavlik-Kunkel Spokane Tribe of Indians Alex Sherwood Bldg., Main St. P.O. Box 100
Wellpinit WA 99040
Ph: 509.258.7020
Fax: 509.258.9600
Email: deannep@spokanetribe.com
Form Submitter
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Intermountain ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Columbia Upper ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Lake Roosevelt - SanPoil Arm Lake Roosevelt - SanPoil Arm from the Confluence to Keller Park (approximately 15 river miles) Ferry, Washington Sanpoil No
Lake Roosevelt - Spokane Arm Lake Roosevelt -Spokane Arm from the Confluence to Little Falls Dam (approximately 29 river miles) Lincoln and Stevens, Washington Spokane No
Lake Roosevelt Lake Roosevel from Grand Coulee Dam to approximately river mile 143. Lincoln, Ferry and Stevens, Washington Columbia Upper Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Kokanee
All Resident Fish
Interior Redband Trout
Rainbow Trout

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Completed: limnological, productivity and fisheries surveys; Big Sheep Creek fish trap data collection; fall kokanee collections to assess stock performance of paired releases; limnetic fish surveys; and STI 2002 and EWU 2004 annual reports.
2004 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; kokanee precocity fieldwork; fall kokanee collections; limnetic fish surveys; and EWU 2003 annual report.
2003 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; kokanee precocity assessment; fall kokanee collections; limnetic fish surveys; and STI 1999, 2000, 2001, and EWU 2002 annual reports.
2002 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; kokanee precocity assessment; fall kokanee collections to assess paired releases; limnetic fish surveys; and STI 1998, WDFW 1999, and EWU 2001 (3) annual reports.
2001 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; kokanee precocity assessment; kokanee collections to assess stock performance of paired releases; limnetic fish surveys; and EWU 1999 and 2000 annual reports.
2000 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; kokanee precocity assessment; kokanee collections to assess paired releases; and limnetic fish surveys.
1999 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton and fisheries surveys; fall kokanee collections; kokanee and rainbow trout limiting factors studies; and STI 1997, WDFW 1998, and EWU 1997 walleye and 1997 kokanee annual reports.
1998 Completed: limnological, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, and fisheries surveys; kokanee matched pair releases to examine performance, imprinting and release strategies; and studies on factors limiting pelagic fish production.
1997 Completed: limnological surveys; phytoplankton surveys to identify composition and examine primary productivity; historical zooplankton and fisheries surveys; and STI 1996, and EWU 1996 annual reports.
1996 Lake Roosevelt Monitoring and Data Collection programs merged to form the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program. Completed: limnological, invertebrate and fisheries surveys and STI 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and EWU 1994 and 1995 annual reports.
1995 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate surveys; fisheries surveys to assess composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment; imprinting and smoltification studies; and STI 1991 and EWU 1994 annual reports.
1994 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate surveys to assess density, biomass and composition; fisheries surveys to examine species composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment; imprinting and smoltification studies; and EWU 1993 annual report.
1993 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate assessment of composition, density, biomass and emergence; fisheries composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment studies; imprinting studies; and EWU 1992 annual report.
1992 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate assessment of composition, density, biomass and emergence; fisheries composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment studies; imprinting studies; and EWU 1991 annual report.
1991 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate assessment of composition, density and biomass; fisheries composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment studies; and STI 1990 annual report.
1990 Completed: limnological surveys; invertebrate assessment of composition, density and biomass; fisheries composition, growth, diet, harvest and entrainment studies; and STI 1988-1989 annual report.
1989 Completed baseline fisheries surveys to collect composition, growth and diet data to evaluate hatchery release effects on fishery; and surveys of invertebrate composition, density, and biomass.
1988 Completed baseline fisheries surveys to collect composition, growth and diet data to evaluate hatchery release effects on fishery; and surveys of invertebrate composition, density, and biomass.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199001800 Rainbow Tr Hab/Pass Impr Prog Completes native rainbow trout habitat improvements on the Colville Conferedated Tribes' Reservation. Works cooperatively with the LRFEP to share information.
BPA 199104600 Spokane Tribal (Galbr Sprgs) H The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program functions as the monitoring and evaluation component.
BPA 199104700 Sherman Creek Hatchery - O&M The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program functions as the monitoring and evaluation component.
BPA 199500900 Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout N The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program functions as the monitoring and evaluation component.
BPA 199501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhanceme Assesses and examines strateges to reduce entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam (work not historically completed by the LRFEP) and assesses/enhances kokanee habitat on the Colville Confederated Tribes' Reservation. This is critical to development of a self-sustaining kokanee salmon fishery. Cooperative information and task sharing to eliminate duplication of efforts.
BPA 199502700 Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Completes white sturgeon research, assessments and conservation aquaculture needs. Works cooperatively with the LRFEP to share information.
BPA 199700400 Resident Fish Above Chief Joe Developed and houses the database where data collected through the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program will be maintained for public access.
BPA 200102900 Ford Hatchery Improvement O&M The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program functions as the monitoring and evaluation component. Fort Hatchery is utilized through the Lake Roosevelt/Banks Lake agreement to reduce fish densities at the Spokane Tribal Hatchery.
Other: WDFW N/A Colville Trout Hatchery Redband Trout Project The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program functions as the monitoring and evaluation component for fish released in Lake Roosevelt via the net pen program (native redband trout component of artificial production)

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
SanPoil 2A2 Protect and enhance redband trout and kokanee salmon populations, preserving their genetic integrity, while maintaining subsistence and recreational fisheries. Intermountain Strategy a) use locally adapted and genetically appropriate redband trout stocks, d) prevent introgression, and f) develop technical and policy work groups. 42-12
Spokane 1B2 Develop and implement projects directed at protecting, restoring, and enhancing fish habitat for native and nonnative resident fish, through improvements in riparian conditions, fish passage, and aquatic conditions. Intermountain Strategy a) use appropriate assessment tools to develop projects, c) develop managment plans, and j) develop technical and policy work groups. 26-7, 26-8
Spokane 2A1 Conduct baseline investigations to determine native resident fish stock composition, distribution, and relative abundance. Intermountain Strategy b) continue surveys to determine fish species distribution and relative abundance, and c) continue populating existing databases and develop new databases as appropriate. 26-12
Spokane 2A2 minimize negative impacts to native species from nonnative stocks when possible. Intermountain Strategies d-e) utilize regulations and mechanical removal techniques. 26-13
Spokane 2C1 Use artificial production to provide recreational and subsistence fisheries consistent with the NPCC Resident Fish Substitution Policy. Intermountain Strategy a) use genetically appropriate native stocks when possible. 26-15
Support Work Element There is no specific objective that fits this work element, rather all other work elements require this to be done to complete program objectives. Intermountain N/A N/A
Upper Columbia 1A1 Continue to evaluate hydropower impacts to native and focal species, identify limiting factors and impacts. Intermountain Strategy b) continue evaluations and c) monitor entrainment. 34-6
Upper Columbia 2A1 Protect genetic integrity of focal and native species. Intermountain Strategy a) determine genetic distribution, b) use locally adapted, genetically appropriate stocks, c) prevent introgression, and d) develop technical/policy work groups. 34-13
Upper Columbia 2A2 Maintain, restore and enhance wild populations of native fish and subsistence species to provide for harvestable surplus. Intermountain Strategy c) implement marking program and Strategy e) develop technical and policy work groups. 34-14
Upper Columbia 2C1 artificially produce enough fish to supplement consistent harvest to meet state and tribal management objectives. Intermountain Strategy f) develop technical and policy work groups. 34-15

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Complete Permit Process & Environmental Compliance Complete Bonneville Power Administration environmental compliance documentation as requested and complete the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) sampling permit documentation. Includes a detailed summary of previous year collections, an annual report of results and the forms requested by WDFW detailing the previous years information and the anticipated collection sites, fish species and numbers of fish for the new sampling year. Completing the BPA compliance documentation and obtaining the WDFW permit is necessary to collect fish in Lake Roosevelt and it’s tributaries. 1/1/2008 3/31/2010 $29,413
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

02: Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program Manage on the ground Lake Roosevelt fisheries work for the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program. Administer subcontracts with WDFW, CCT, EWU and other subcontractors to ensure project work elements and milestones are completed. Prepare financial estimates and invoice documentation as requested by Bonneville Power Administration. Prepare statement of work, implementation plans and budgets for future Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program work. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $203,697
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

03: Coordination Coordination of the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program Participate in and coordinate with other Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program participants to assess project direction. Coordinate with other research activities in the project area to ensure collection efforts are not duplicated and data is shared. Facilitate coordination amongst project participants for sampling scheduling, equipment/personnel sharing, determination of other cost-effective measures, data dissemination and sharing, program direction, hatchery recommendations and science review. Coordination includes attending bi-monthly LRFEP program meetings, biannual Hatchery Coordination Meetings and Lake Roosevelt Management Team meetings. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $137,154
Biological Objectives Metrics
SanPoil 2A2
Spokane 1B2
Upper Columbia 1A1
Upper Columbia 2A1
Upper Columbia 2A2
Upper Columbia 2C1
No Metrics for this Work Element

04: Develop RM&E Methods and Designs Develop study plans for Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Program Study plans will be developed for water quality monitoring and evaluation, fisheries monitoring and evaluation, fry vs. post smolt kokanee studies in Onion Creek and Hawk Creek, fry evaluation in Big Sheep Creek, the kokanee emigration study on the mainstem upper Columbia River and the wild kokanee life history evaluation. 8/1/2007 4/30/2010 $55,724
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

05: Mark/Tag Animals Floy ® Tag Rainbow Trout and Phalon Lake Redband Trout Floy ® tag rainbow and redband trout at Kettle Falls net pen locations for the final year of redband trout performance study. Uniquely mark kokanee to assess performance and return rates of release groups for fry (thermal marked otoliths) versus post-smolt (fin clipping) studies. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $75,018
Biological Objectives Metrics
Upper Columbia 2A2
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

06: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Conduct Fisheries and Limnology Studies on Lake Roosevelt. Complete water quality, phytoplankton and attached algae chlorophyll and zooplankton community data to monitor physical, chemical and population indices for lower trophic levels. Complete a reservoir-wide creel survey, hydroacoustic/gill net field work and laboratory work, seasonal fisheries electrofishing and gill netting to monitor hatchery fish recruitment to the fishery, limiting factors to hatchery and native fish in the reservoir and wild and hatchery fish abundance, feeding habits, habitat use, growth, age structure, and food availability. Collect wild kokanee eggs and milt to be transferred to the CCT hatchery for incubation, culturing and release into the SanPoil River. Collect hatchery kokanee eggs and milt to enhance hatchery kokanee production on Lake Roosevelt. Collect adult kokanee returns to Big Sheep Creek, Onion Creek and Hawk creek to assess success of fry and post-smolt releases as described under new recommendations. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $1,661,627
Biological Objectives Metrics
SanPoil 2A2
Spokane 2A1
Spokane 2A2
Spokane 2C1
Upper Columbia 1A1
Upper Columbia 2A1
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

07: Install Fish Monitoring Equipment Install Fish Trap/Monitoring Weir for Big Sheep Creek Work with Colville Confederated Tribes to install weir trap at Big Sheep Creek for adult kokanee collections. Eastern Washington University is primarily responsible for coordination with CCT and completing this work element. 8/1/2007 11/30/2009 $81,609
Biological Objectives Metrics
Upper Columbia 2A1
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Install Fish Monitoring Equipment Install fish trap to determine kokanee immigration. Install fish trap in mainstem Columbia River at Northport, WA to determine immigration of kokanee into Lake Roosevelt from British Columbia, WA. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $402,084
Biological Objectives Metrics
Upper Columbia 1A1
No Metrics for this Work Element

09: Create/Manage/Maintain Database Database Maintenance for LRFEP Install fish trap in mainstem Columbia River at Northport, WA to determine immigration of kokanee into Lake Roosevelt from British Columbia, WA. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $175,311
Biological Objectives Metrics
Spokane 2A1
No Metrics for this Work Element

10: Analyze/Interpret Data Analysis of Fisheries, Limnological Data Collected for Annual Reports. Complete data analysis from Lake Roosevelt fisheries sampling, limnology sampling, creel surveys and tagging studies. Produce standard indices and statistics that will allow for inference on population status, fish condition and growth, production, predation effects, etc. Information will be synthesized into specific relationships, which models can use to predict the effects of various changes to the system on the trophic levels of Lake Roosevelt. 1/1/2008 7/31/2010 $302,163
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring

11: Produce Plan Develop Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Management Guiding Document Review and update the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Guiding Document based on improved understanding of the Lake Roosevelt ecosystem resulting from new data and analyses, multi-year analyses of long-term data, and model permutations examining various hydro-operations and management action scenarios designed to identify steps necessary to achieve management objectives. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $18,612
Biological Objectives Metrics
Spokane 1B2
No Metrics for this Work Element

12: Produce Status Report Produce quarterly status reports Complete quarterly updates detailing project progress, including accomplishments, major purchases, and deviations from schedule, budget or work statement. Subcontractors quarterly status reports will be incorporated into a single Project Quarterly Status Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration. 10/1/2007 7/31/2010 $53,543
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

13: Produce Annual Report Produce Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program Annual Report(s) Annual reports will provide background, introductory information, a detailed description of methods, results of analyses and a discussion of the results in the context of other related research findings from the published literature. 1/1/2008 7/31/2010 $218,499
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

14: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Provide summary data to LRFEP Provide summary reports, tables and figures to display the progress made by individual components of the Evaluation Program, each creel section will submit weekly creel summary that will be compiled to develop a reservoir-wide weekly creel summary that will be distributed to Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program co-managers, project participants and other interested individuals. Presentation of data and results at public meetings and professional conferences. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $50,562
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

15: Provide Technical Review Provide Technical Review for other LRFEP projects and reports Provide technical review for other Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program projects and reports. Project proposals and draft reports will be required to have completed a thorough review by project participants prior to submission to Bonneville Power Administration. 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $67,398
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element

16: Outreach and Education Lake Roosevelt Public Outreach Activities Participate in Lake Roosevelt outreach activities coordinated with local schools (Kids in the Creek, Water Festival, Student Discovery Week). 8/1/2007 7/31/2010 $4,690
Biological Objectives Metrics
SanPoil 2A2
Spokane 1B2
Upper Columbia 1A1
Upper Columbia 2A1
Upper Columbia 2A2
Upper Columbia 2C1
* # of students reached: Approximately 180 students annually

17: Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Publish Evaluation Program investigations in per-reviewed scientific articles. The Evaluation Program has had a long history and collected considerable data on Lake Roosevelt. Additionally, new investigations proposed to examine kokanee behavior and entrainment from upriver hydropower facilities would provide valuable information for managers and researchers working to restore or enhance kokanee salmon populations in the basin. Publication of study results will provide that information to a wider audience. 6/1/2008 7/31/2010 $92,949
Biological Objectives Metrics
Support Work Element
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 9 FTE $286,964 $298,462 $307,430
Fringe Benefits 5 FTE at 18%, 4 FTE at 12% $71,199 $74,049 $76,268
Supplies Office, field and laboratory supplies $30,929 $32,166 $33,035
Travel Creel/Sampling fuel, meeting costs $19,192 $19,960 $20,558
Overhead Calculated at 17.6% $75,802 $78,851 $81,151
Other Repair/Maintenance $8,000 $8,500 $8,500
Other Building Improvements $500 $500 $500
Other Utilities/Communications $6,100 $6,300 $6,500
Other Insurance $6,825 $7,098 $7,311
Other Subcontractor/Eastern Washington University $141,409 $171,928 $167,612
Other Subcontractor/Colville Confederated Tribes $143,997 $149,755 $154,246
Other Subcontractor/Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $366,034 $357,237 $362,105
Other Water Analyses/Spokane Tribal Laboratory $7,580 $8,000 $8,000
Other Senior Biostatistician $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Other GIS Modeling/Support $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Totals $1,171,031 $1,219,306 $1,239,716

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$3,630,053
Total Work Element budget$3,630,053

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
BC Hydro VR2 Receivers (7) $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 In-Kind Confirmed
BPA (Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Recovery) VR2 Receivers (8) $8,760 $8,760 $8,760 In-Kind Confirmed
STI Water/Fish Dept Personnel $2,880 $2,970 $3,040 In-Kind Confirmed
TANF Personnel $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 In-Kind Under Development
Totals $24,840 $24,930 $25,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$1,204,937 $1,199,841 Monitoring and Evaluation Activities on Lake Roosevelt
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
The budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 should be reduced as the the kokanee thermal experience field work will be completed. Data analysis and reporting results will continue into 2010. The out year budget will be comprised of monitoring (creel, fisheries surveys, limnological surveys and productivity data collection required for modeling updates), kokanee immigration trapping and adult returns to egg collection facilities.
 
Termination Date Comments
N/A
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$1,171,031
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$1,219,306
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$1,239,716
Total NPCC Rec
$3,630,053
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$1,171,031
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$1,219,306
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$1,239,716
Total NPCC Rec
$3,630,053
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: No change to proposed budget.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
Comments: The proposal is substantially improved from those of the past and now is beginning to more clearly identify the serious problem that management of the aquatic resources of Lake Roosevelt poses. Technical information regarding the scope and nature of the problem is more adequately presented here, as it is in the new Guiding Document prepared for Lake Roosevelt. There should be a continuation of this more rigorous analysis of results and potentially a redesign of the program to assess whether fishery desires are realistic given the community dynamics and physical constraints in the system. Much future improvement is needed in such critical analysis, with more targeted monitoring, and better-organized proposals. Lake Roosevelt managers face a daunting political task in trying to satisfy a diversity of (sometimes conflicting) user groups, given an artificial water body containing a mix of target species and other organisms that is largely unnatural. The response brings this out and shows they are contending with the situation about as well as could be reasonably expected.

Responses were requested regarding two issues: the role of walleye and the role of rainbow trout. The proposal left reviewers concerned that the scientific credibility of the project seemed to be compromised by the complex mix of variables and the hope that fishery benefits for kokanee and rainbow trout can be enhanced without altering the predator populations. The response provided some clarification regarding the issue of walleye management. The additional information about walleye size distribution was helpful. Reviewers appreciate the sponsor’ intent to make a series of gradual regulation changes (that are politically acceptable) to reduce walleye numbers and thus reduce their predation on kokanee. Lacking in the response, however, was an assessment of the extent to which the increased bag limit will affect walleye abundance. Also, reviewers repeat the comment regarding the limited value of relative abundance estimates and note that sooner or later a better estimator of predator (especially walleye) abundance will be needed.

Regarding rainbow trout, the response provided evidence that expanding the rainbow trout netpen rearing project would be expected to have minimal negative effects on kokanee, and reviewers concerns are dispelled. The netpen project, that this project provides technical support to, would increase redband rainbow production and move toward an entirely triploid release of rainbow trout. These are reasonable and supportable efforts. The ISRP recommends that only female triploids be stocked, because male triploids (in mixed sex production lots) will engage in courtship behavior with native trout, possibly leading to gamete waste (from the native trout). The ISRP notes that standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocols are not yet established for using sterile female triploids to provide recreational angling in waters inhabited by native trout. Large-scale production of triploid female rainbow trout is not 100% effective. Sponsors should have the production lots they stock evaluated for the percentage of triploids, and report this as part of the project monitoring. The efficacy of avoiding hybridization between stocked and native trout is unknown when less than 100% of the stocked fish are triploids. Ongoing evaluation of hybridization in contemporaneous native trout populations will be needed in the future. Stocking triploid females to provide recreational angling in regions with highly sensitive native populations is not yet justified. See Kozfkay, J. R., J. C. Dillon, and D. J. Schill. 2006. Routine use of sterile fish in salmonid sport fisheries: are we there yet? Fisheries 31(8):392 - 401.

Reviewers acknowledge their awareness of the historic and cultural significance of kokanee for sponsors in the Lake Roosevelt system. Reviewers’ perception of the kokanee situation is that the project is trying to counteract the extremely poor results from stocking hatchery kokanee mainly by trying "fixes" of the hatchery and stocking program -- and some changes in harvest regulations. None have been adequate yet, and it is far from convincing that any of those proposed will be effective. A new approach is noted in the proposal that would more closely mimic the wild kokanee population, and that appears a more defensible position. Reviewers suggest that project personnel continue to investigate whether it is reasonable to try to have a kokanee fishery in the lake proper, other than that provided by naturally reproducing fish. Evidence to date suggests (to reviewers) that, in the face of entrainment losses, artificial production of kokanee is likely futile until the walleye population is managed appropriately (which probably cannot be done) and until lake water levels can be better managed for kokanee spawning.

Great improvement was seen in information transfer. It is commendable to see material being published in major scientific journals.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: The proposal is substantially improved from those of the past and now is beginning to more clearly identify the long-recognized serious problem that management of the aquatic resources of Lake Roosevelt poses. Technical information regarding the scope and nature of the problem is more adequately presented here, as it is in the new Guiding Document prepared for Lake Roosevelt. There should be a continuation of this more rigorous analysis of results and potentially a redesign of the program to assess whether fishery desires are realistic given the community dynamics and physical constraints in the system. Much future improvement is needed in such critical analysis, with more targeted monitoring, and better-organized proposals.

Responses are requested regarding two issues: the role of walleye, and the role of rainbow trout. Reviewers are still concerned that the scientific credibility of the project seems to be compromised by the complex mix of variables and the hope that fishery benefits for kokanee and rainbow trout can be enhanced without altering the predator populations. For walleye, harvest regulations are being modified, but it not possible to tell from the proposal the extent of such a change. To what extent is the regulation change expected to increase walleye harvest, and to what extent (if any) will predation on wild kokanee and hatchery kokanee be affected? A major deficiency of the proposal is lack of adequate discussion of walleye population dynamics and management. Walleye account for half of the harvest - so where is the management plan for walleye and other major predators? Please elaborate on the desired/anticipated walleye status for the near future.

Regarding rainbow trout, the intent is to increase the level of netpen rearing by about 50%, shifting from 550,000 fish released annually to about 750,000. Benefits to anglers and fish managers clearly exist, but what are the risks? In Idaho's Lake Pend Oreille, rainbow trout are emerging as the greatest predator on kokanee. To what extent would kokanee in Lake Roosevelt be impacted by the proposed increase in rainbow trout production?

The gist of the kokanee situation is that the project is trying to counteract the extremely poor results from stocking hatchery kokanee mainly by trying "fixes" of the hatchery and stocking program--and some changes in harvest regulations. None have been adequate yet, and it is far from convincing that any of those proposed will be effective. A new approach is noted in the proposal that would more closely mimic the wild kokanee population, and that appears a more defensible position. Reviewers suggest that project personnel should more vigorously investigate whether it is reasonable to try to have a kokanee fishery in the lake, other than that provided by wild (naturally reproducing) fish. All evidence to date indicates that artificial production of kokanee for this lake is futile (and probably a great waste of money) and should be stopped until the walleye population is managed appropriately (which probably cannot be done) and until lake water levels can be better managed for kokanee spawning. Reviewers welcome, but do not require, feedback on hatchery kokanee.

Other comments (not needing responses): In its most recent review the ISRP stated "the Panel remains concerned that the project does not seem to focus on monitoring specific effects from other projects (other projects list this project as the M&E for their work), but rather just conduct a general fish population monitoring in the reservoir." That concern over lack of strong connections still applies.

The proposers emphasize suitability of the lake's zooplankton supply for sustaining kokanee, but of what consequence is this if too few kokanee survive walleye predation to make adequate use of the zooplankton?

The proposal would increase redband rainbow production and move toward an entirely triploid release of rainbow trout. These are reasonable and supportable efforts.

Great improvement is seen in information transfer. It is commendable to see material being published in major scientific journals.

Reliance in various places on relative abundance data is not convincing. Change in relative abundance of a fish population can occur either because that population changed in absolute abundance or because some other fish(es) did. So changes in relative abundances alone tell us little. The data should be shown in terms of absolute values, as well as the percentages. Apparently no absolute values exist and, if so, that should be stated.

Table 2 shows figures on economic value, but the basis for these is not shown (data and equations or literature sources).

On p 11, it is said that: "High water retention times tend to decrease entrainment of fish, allowing greater numbers to remain in the reservoir, which was observed in the creel (Table 2)." Table 2 does not show a relationship between water retention times and numbers of fish. There should be such a table or graph if the proposers are trying to make this point.

A clear description of the apparently strong collaboration among stakeholders is provided, with one notable exception: the work newly proposed by the Colville Federated Tribes in the Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement (199501100), to assess and enhance deepwater kokanee spawning, is not included and does not appear to be part of this coordinated effort.

Suggestions regarding proposal organization: The narrative should be reorganized according to the guidelines for proposals, and it should be condensed so as to be more to the point and less repetitive. The Technical and Scientific Background section contains much essential information but is much longer and more complicated than need be. Therefore, the main points tend to be obscured. The core technical and scientific background should be sorted out and kept in this section, whereas, most of the project history presented here should be moved (in condensed form and with summarizing tables and graphs) to the Project History Section of the proposal. This section also includes material on objectives and methods, which should be left to the section on objectives and methods.

True objectives (desired outcomes) are not stated. The appearance is given that the project is seen more as a matter of performing procedures rather than obtaining results. At many points where a statement of objective should exist (i.e., preceding a series of interrelated work elements), the proposers have inserted the sentence: "Support work element." Therefore, a sense of purpose and continuity is lacking in much of this section.

Some objectives show up in the text without being labeled (or really organized) as such. For example, near bottom of p 39, it says: "Data gathered will be used to determine:" and six items follow. Five of these are objectives (or at least the beginnings of objective statements). They (and others?) should have been listed up front as project objectives. Work elements should follow from objectives, not the other way around.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.