FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199404300

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program
Proposal ID199404300
OrganizationSpokane Tribe of Indians (STOI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKeith Underwood
Mailing addressPO Box 100 Wellpinit, WA 99040
Phone / email5092587020 / keithund@spokanetribe.com
Manager authorizing this projectKeith Underwood
Review cycleIntermountain
Province / SubbasinIntermountain / Lake Roosevelt
Short descriptionMonitor and evaluate the performance of hatchery fish. Develop and maintain a model able to predict the effects of hydro-operations and management actions on the lake ecosystem and fishery. Use model results to refine a fisheries management plans.
Target speciesrainbow trout, kokanee salmon, burbot, walleye, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, mountain whitefish, lake whitefish, suckers spp,
Project location
47.9537 -118.9777 Lake Roosevelt
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1988 From 1988 to date, collected baseline limnological, biological and fisheries data to allow for adaptive management of the hatcheries and hydrosystem.
1988 Established coordinated fisheries co-management activities among WDFW, CCT and STI on Lake Roosevelt to facilitate coordinated management activities.
1988 Established communcation with local and regional Columbia River stakeholders through special interest groups (i.e., CBFWA, NWPPC, Lake Roosevelt Forum) to include public in fisheries management process.
1990 Established hatchery reared kokanee salmon and rainbow trout stocking goals based on food (zooplankton) availability. Set harvest goals based on stocking goals. Articulated the first set of biological objectives for the lake.
1990 Established new walleye harvest regulations to maintain a harvestable population. Walleye condition was low suggesting the walleye population was too large for the available food. Regulation changed age and size structure of walleye population.
1991 Spokane Tribal Hatchery began operation. First hatchery with primary purpose of providing kokanee salmon and rainbow trout for harvest in Lake Roosevelt.
1991 Annually monitor and evaluate the performance of fish from the hatcheries. Based on data collected, hatcheries stocking strategies are adjusted to maximize angler harvest and minimize impacts to wild native species.
1992 Sherman Creek Hatchery began operation (managed by WDFW). Hatchery is designed to collect eggs from kokanee returning as adults to spawn at Sherman Creek.
1992 Established time frame when kokanee salmon are physiologically predisposed to forming an olfactory imprinted memory of the water in which they are reared suggesting that imprinting could be used to enhance the return of kokanee salmon to Sherman Creek.
1992 Discovered that kokanee exhibit weak smoltification characteristics, both physiologically and behaviorally, during their first year of life suggesting that kokanee salmon are likely to entrain during the spring of each year.
1993 Surveyed the benthic macroinvertebrate community and estimated terrestrial macroinvertebrate deposition. Discovered benthic and terrestrial macroinvertebrate communities were a limited, insignificant source of food for fish.
1993 Established a relationship between water retention time and zooplankton production. Water retention times greater than 30 days is necessary to maximize zooplankton density and biomass.
1994 Participated in human health studies that investigated toxin loads (i.e., mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans) in tissue of walleye, rainbow trout, and kokanee. Also, conducted surveys to estimate fish consumption by anglers. Identified minimal risk.
1994 The first year adult kokanee spawners returned to Sherman Cr. as a result of imprinting with artificial chemicals.
1994 Hatcheries changed kokanee stocking strategies from fry to yearling releases. Fry provided less than one percent return to harvest and egg collection facilities. Studies suggest yearlings out perform fry by 5 to 10 percent.
1994 Changed stocking period of net pens and hatchery reared rainbow trout from April to June. This change minimizes entrainment by releasing fish while the lake is refilling instead of drawing down.
1994 Established the need to model the effects of hydro-operations and management actions on the ecosystem and fishery of Lake Roosevelt in order to create compatible management objectives between lower and upper river stakeholders.
1995 Established interim Lake Roosevelt hydro-operations rules. If rules are followed fish entrainment will be limited and food production will be enhanced providing for more and bigger fish in the creel.
1995 Became member of the TMT to participate with in-season hydro-operations decisions process in an attempt to make hydro-operations which benefit salmon while limiting impacts to Lake Roosevelt ecology.
1997 Intensified data collection of lower trophic levels (i.e., phytoplankton, periphyton and zooplankton) to a level appropriate for creating a model of Lake Roosevelt ecosystem.
1998 Began providing water quality data to the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council for human health considerations.
1998 Assisted the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council with collection of fish tissues for metal, dioxin and furan toxicity tests.
1998 In cooperation with the Sturgeon Project indexed the Lake Roosevelt sturgeon population. Results suggest sturgeon have not recruited to adult stage within Lake Roosevelt for over 20-25 years.
1998 Performed initial pelagic hydroacoustic surveys and mapped littoral habitats of the lake.
1998 Developed new kokanee harvest regulation, limiting angler harvest to hatchery origin kokanee only. Wild origin kokanee appear to be depressed and in need of protection from harvest.
1999 Conducted a bioenergics model run on Lake Roosevelt kokanee salmon and rainbow trout. Determined that food (zooplankton) was not limiting. This information refocused us on entrainment and predation as most likely the main limiting factors.
1999 Completed a walleye predation study on kokanee released from Sherman Creek Hatchery. This study estimated that from10 to 20% of the kokanee released were consumed by walleye within the first 3 weeks of release.
1999 Identified zooplankton production is greater near shore (Z=17m) than at the thalwag of the lake. Historical and current reservoir zooplankton biomass estimates are based on thalwag sampling and are therefore conservative.
1999 Completed a rainbow trout net pen environmental impact assessment. No significant impacts were identified.
1999 Mapped shoreline macrohabitat at 8 sites in Lake Roosevelt.
1999 Confirmed through a series of studies that Lake Roosevelt kokanee salmon, rainbow trout and other fishes production is primarily limited due to entrainment.
1999 Based on matched release studies of kokanee imprinted to artificial chemicals and kokanee not imprinted at Sherman Creek. Determined that the use of artificial imprinting chemicals did not significantly improve adult returns of kokanee to Sherman Creek.
1999 Began evaluating redband trout performance in the Lake Roosevelt net pen program, in an attempt to find stocks of indigenous rainbow trout, which perform in the fishery and lend themselves to artificial propagation.
1999 Began testing the performance of Kootenay Lake kokanee performance in the Spokane Tribal Hatchery, Sherman Creek Hatchery and Lake Roosevelt fishery. Our goal is to transition fully to indigenous Kootenay Lake kokanee within the next couple of years.
1999 Completed a mark-recapture study to estimate the walleye population. This information is used for estimating predation of hatchery origin fish during the first three weeks of release.
2000 Imposed new kokanee harvest regulation to limit hooking mortality of wild kokanee. Further limited angler induced mortality of wild kokanee salmon.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9104600 Spokane Tribal Hatchery Releases hatchery reared kokanee and ranbow trout into Lake Roosevelt. The Evaluation Project monitors and evaluates the performance of hatchery products in the fishery and ecosystem.
9104700 Sherman Creek Hatchery Releases hatchery reared kokanee and ranbow trout in Lake Roosevelt. The Evaluation Project monitors and evaluates the performance of hatchery products in the fishery and ecosystem.
9500900 Lake Roosevelt Net Pen Program Releases hatchery reared kokanee and ranbow trout in Lake Roosevelt. The Evaluation Project monitors and evaluates the performance of hatchery products in the fishery and ecosystem.
20096 Ford Hatchery Improvement, Operation and Maintenance The Evaluation Project monitors and evaluates the performance of hatchery products in the fishery and ecosystem.
20097 Phalon lake Wild Rainbow Trap Improvements The Evaluation Project monitors and evaluates the performance of hatchery products in the fishery and ecosystem.
9001800 Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements of Tributaries to Lake Roosevelt The Habitat Improvement Project will provides information essential to the development of model development and management planning.
9501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project The Chief Joseph Kokane Enhancement Project provides information essential to the development of model development and management planning.
9502700 Collect Data on White Sturgeon Above Grand Coulee Dam The Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Project will provide information essential to the development of biological/integrated rule curves.
9700400 Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams identifies status of stocks and maintains a centralized database for the Upper Columbia River. These two projects are complimentary and rely on each other for pertinent information.
881084 Streamnet Provides regional information vital to model development.
Little Falls Kokanee Egg Collection And Acclimation Facility. Collects adult kokanee spawners for egg collection and acclimates yearling kokanee prior to stocking into Lake Roosevelt
Lake Roosevelt Forum Provides a forum that facilittes roundtable discussions among resource managers and other stakeholders on topics germaine to managing fisheries.
Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council Provides peer review for the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program, and conducts supporting reserch such as fheavy metal and orgainc toxin loads in fish tissues.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Create an informed Lake Roosevelt Fishery Management Plan with hydro-operation recommendations. a. Develop management objectives for the Lake Roosevelt fishery and ecosystem in cooperation with appropriate Columbia River stakeholders. 1 $10,000 Yes
b. Run model with various hydro-operations and management action scenarios to identify steps necessary to achieve management objectives. 2.5 $40,000 Yes
c. Identify and evaluate constraints (i.e., economic, biologic, social) limiting our ability to reach the management objectives. 1 $0 Yes
d. Adjust management objectives to match realistic actions based on constraints 1 $0 Yes
e. Write and publish document articulating the Lake Roosevelt Fishery Management Plan with hydro-operation recommendations for NWPPC review and approval. 1 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2002FY 2003

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Refine analyses of trophic interactions and effects of various parameters on trophic levels. a. Conduct multivariate or other appropriate statistical analyses with multiyear fisheries and lower trophic level data sets to confirm working hypotheses. 3 $50,000 Yes
b. Scientific peer review analyses. 3 $10,000 Yes
c. Write studies for publication in professional journals. 3 $40,000 Yes
2. Maintain current databases in order to validate, refine and maintain the Lake Roosevelt Ecology Model. a. Collect water quality, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrate community data to monitor temporal-spatial physical, chemical and population indices. in perpetuity $100,000 Yes
b. Estimate population size and habitat use (e.g., water temp use) of pelagic fish species by way of mobile hydroacoustics surveys. in perpetuity $30,000 Yes
c. Monitor temporal-spatial distribution of newly released hatchery fish to estimate timing of vulnerability to entrainment and predation. 3 $10,000 Yes
d. Measure littoral habitat type and availability. 2 $50,000 Yes
3. Validate and refine the Lake Roosevelt Ecology Model a. Use collected data to validate the accuracy of the Lake Roosevelt Ecology Model. 2 $10,000 Yes
b. Identify model weaknesses and recommend solutions. 2 $10,000 Yes
c. Make refinements to model based on recommendations. 2 $5,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Monitor and evaluate impacts of hatchery origin fish on wild fish and lower trophic levels of Lake Roosevelt. a. Conduct fishery surveys through electro-fishing, gillnetting and beach seining during three seasons to assess wild and hatchery fish abundance, feeding habits, habitat use, growth, age structure and food availability. In perpetuity $110,584 Yes
b. Maintain a master data set of current and historical data projects conducted on Lake Roosevelt and its tributaries. In perpetuity $30,000
c. Conduct analyses sufficient to create an informed recommendations as to hatchery stocking strategies which minimize impacts to wild fish and lower trophic levels. In perpetuity $63,000
Monitor and evaluate various stocks of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout performance in Lake Roosevelt a. Mark a minimum of 40,000 hatchery origin rainbow trout with anchor tags. 4 $27,000
b. Mark a minimum of 300,000 hatchery origin kokanee salmon with coded wire tags and adipose clips. 4 $63,000
c. Conduct paired release studies of hatchery kokanee salmon and rainbow trout to determine the best stocks and release strategies which maximize harvest and egg collection will minimizing negative effects to wild fish and entrainment. 6 $160,000
d. Monitor temporal-spatial distribution of newly released hatchery fish to estimate timing of vulnerability to entrainment and predation. in perpetuity $92,000
e. Estimate walleye population size with mark-recapture studies to determine predator abundance. 4 $8,000
Monitor and evaluate the performance of hatchery and wild fish in the Lake Roosevelt fishery. a. Conduct Lake Roosevelt creel surveys to estimate angle pressure, harvest and catch. Also evaluate the performance of hatchery and wild fish in the fishery. in perpetuity $155,000
Monitor and evaluate the performance of hatchery and wild fish in the Lake Roosevelt fishery. a. Conduct a limited Banks Lake creel survey to estimate angle pressure, harvest and catch of kokanee salmon from the Spokane Tribal Hatchery. 2 $40,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Other [Itemized budget section not filled out - adding request amt in one category. 5/28/03] $1,113,584
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$1,113,584
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$1,113,584
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$900,000
% change from forecast23.7%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Although the 2001 budget request is greater than the budget forecasted in 1999, this 2001 budget request does reflect a significant reduction from that contracted in 2000. The 2000 budget was 1.5 million and the current 2001 budget is 1.1 million resulting in a 26% reduction from the 2000 budget. We have made an honest effort to meet our originally forecasted target however, due to the fact that the model and data collection effort are behind schedule, the budget is greater than expected. We are unwilling to abandon our data collection effort prior to having the model up and running. We believe it is foolish to stop data collect activities prior to knowing whether the model can answer questions in place of empirical data. Furthermore, an additional year of intensive data collection will refine model variables and our understanding of trophic relationships, ultimately providing for stronger models and understanding of the biological systems in which we are working.

Reason for change in scope

No change is scope of work.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000


Fundable only if a response is provided that shows the results of past efforts and addresses the other ISRP concerns described below. The proposal is not scientifically sound without description of past efforts and their success or failure. What have the project leaders learned? They should show analyzed data in the project history section of the proposal to document their progress and competence. The ISRP has commented on the lack of data in the past and again data presentation was lacking in this proposal and the presentation. If the PIs cannot show and synthesize the results, a different contractor should do the evaluation. The project needs consultation and oversight. The PIs do make recommendations for management actions, but the basis of the their recommendations need to be better substantiated. A senior biometrician should supervise data collection design and data analysis. The project has gathered data for 12 years so they should at least be able to show stock status. Results from this project should be integrated with the other projects to be useful. Too much emphasis on models takes away from producing descriptive data analyses intermediate in the process, yet these data are critical to operation of the many projects for which monitoring and evaluation data are provided.

This project conducts the overall monitoring and evaluation of Lake Roosevelt limnology, aquatic ecosystem, fish, and fisheries, which is used as a basis for measuring success of several other projects, especially hatcheries. It is a core project of the subbasin with high regional significance.

The technical and scientific background is adequate but could benefit from more explicit use of the scientific literature on reservoirs as unique aquatic environments. Although the PI said in oral presentation that there is little conceptual literature on reservoirs, there actually is quite a lot (for example papers by Kimmell, Thornton and others, and management experiences with other storage reservoirs with deep drawdowns such as in the TVA system, as well as many papers in the journal Regulated Rivers). The project could benefit from additional outside assistance from reservoir managers who have dealt with large reservoirs with deep drawdowns. Synthesis of information through use of a model for reservoir hydraulics and water quality is a good idea as a conceptual foundation, but its use could be improved with outside consultation. A description of the model would have been helpful. The relationship to other projects is clear, but might have been described in more detail. The project history is informative but lacks specific project results (as requested last year by the ISRP). The project has developed over the years, embodies a comprehensive and appropriately basic approach, and has resulted in improved management. The project personnel obviously continue to work toward improving the work plan. The objectives are clear, and the tasks and methods are appropriate and related to objectives (a problem noted last year). We appreciate the difficulty of focusing on specific tasks in a system so large and hydraulically complex.

The objective of affecting hydro operations because of fishery objectives in the reservoir is probably unrealistic when taken in a regional perspective. Lower river managers expect Lake Roosevelt to provide water when needed. The project would be more realistically scoped in the context of managing fisheries in an unstable and non-natural environment. Having more modest expectations for the usefulness of the model for obtaining specific results is essential, although the model is a useful conceptual guide and synthesis tool. The establishment of an ecosystem model for Lake Roosevelt is a laudable goal, but will it be able to capture the unique features of this system and truly be useful as a fisheries management tool?

Facilities and personnel are adequately described but may not be adequate for the goal of managing fisheries in such a large and complex system. Collaborative use of personnel from other projects is important for mounting large field operations. Additional use of outside consultants, including a senior biometrician, could bolster the professional capabilities.

The project is represented as adequately transferring its information to other projects for their M&E needs, but no data were presented in the proposal and little data appeared in the other proposals to illustrate or substantiate this. The project should have a large and important benefit for fish and fisheries of Lake Roosevelt. There are likely benefits to non-target species and habitats from increasing general understanding of the system. All consistency criteria are met.

The proposal is informative but contains parts that lead to concern. One example: on narrative p. 6, paragraph 2, is it really meant that "all kokanee with an adipose fin clip" (i.e., those from the hatchery) are to be excluded from harvest, or should it be that all unclipped kokanee are to be excluded from harvest?

The project has budgeted $40K per year for "writing studies for the public in professional journals." We applaud publication, but wonder if the expectation of $40k/year worth is a realistic target. There is no publication yet from the project but one has been submitted. A major concern is that the project is behind schedule for both modeling and data collection (p11) but there is no indication of how extra money will allow catch-up. Both the proposal and the oral presentations caused us to wonder if staff is adequate to handle the statistical analysis and modeling aspects of the project. Outside consultation by a senior statistician and a trained modeler could be helpful.

Another project is proposing evaluation of strobe lights as an entrainment deterrent at Grand Coulee Dam. There was no mention of whether this monitoring project is gearing up to be able to detect differences in kokanee population dynamics in the reservoir when (if?) strobe lights are successful at reducing entrainment. If that technology works, it could mean a big change in the way several hatchery and net pen projects are operated. Monitoring the reservoir for effects of reduced entrainment should be a major objective of this project.

Urgent/High Priority
Nov 15, 2000


T6-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented. Until results are obtained through the assessment and an M&E plan is developed and implemented, it is unknown whether the long-term benefits will be realized. M2-no listed species involved M7-if recommendations are implemented then would protect habitat
Dec 1, 2000


Fundable, the response was adequate. The ISRP's greatest concern with this project proposal (and presentation) was the lack of documented results from 12 years of work. The sponsors took the ISRP comments seriously and applied considerable effort on their response. The new material significantly clarified results of the project to date and reinforced the feeling that a system like Lake Roosevelt is probably one of the hardest aquatic systems in the world to manage. The Panel was adequately convinced that reasonable pieces of work have been completed (an impression, which we did not get from the proposal). The authors provided data, along with good summaries. As the reviewers suspected, the project had data and other information available with which it could have better documented progress in the original proposal.

However, 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. For example, reviewers raised the question of seeking effects on fish populations from reduced entrainment through the dam (a big effort by another project). Their response was that they didn't do monitoring for specific project effects, only general fish sampling from which one might see effects over several years. We do not find this answer satisfying when a more explicit study design and more focused sampling could better establish the effects (if any) of other projects and lead to better adaptive management.

Also, reviewers' recommendation for having a consultant was misinterpreted as obtaining consultants to do the work, when the Panel really meant having a senior advisor available to them for guidance, research planning and analysis of results. It is clear that project personnel do not have a clear concept for how to proceed with the overall project and could use such seasoned advice. Such a senior advisor could be of value to the STOI for selecting and evaluating the hired consultants. However, the sponsors accepted the Panel's request for a statistical consultant.

One important item was not clear to the Panel until reading this response. The issue is kokanee stocking. The Panel asked several times during the tour how hatchery kokanee were contributing to the fishery. We got the feeling that they were performing poorly but to an unknown extent. However, it is evident from the response that kokanee released as fry showed virtually no return to the creel. Moreover, more recent stockings of larger kokanee performed even worse in Lake Roosevelt. Therefore, besides providing some possible benefit downstream of Lake Roosevelt, this expensive hatchery and netpen rearing operation may be simply feeding walleyes. The Panel believes this likely is a major problem and the author of the response appears to feel likewise, but in a low profile manner. Had reviewers been afforded a better understanding of this problem during the tour and presentations, they would have had a different perspective when reviewing the kokanee hatchery projects and could have initiated discussion of the issue in relation to hatchery and netpen operations. This project should demonstrate a clear focus on providing information to other projects such that their future program modifications will be likely to solve this problem (i.e., modifying netpen release patterns of kokanee to obtain some sort of dispersal, elimination of netpen operations, etc.). All-in-all, the Panel believes that this project can be funded.

Jan 31, 2001


Sep 11, 2001


NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$950,000 $950,000 $950,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website