FY 1999 proposal 199501100
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199501100 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 199501100 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kirk Truscott |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096348845 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Assessment of kokanee stock status, strength, genetics, contribution to local resident fishery and entrainment rates out of system. |
| Target species | kokanee |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $106,393 | |
| Fringe | $29,683 | |
| Supplies | $18,000 | |
| Operating | $6,000 | |
| Travel | $26,044 | |
| Indirect | $41,706 | |
| Subcontractor | $362,969 | |
| Other | $9,205 | |
| $600,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $600,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $600,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: High water years cause trapping problems, flood waters destroy sites and equipment. We have been un-able to monitor outmigration losses through Grand Coulee dam drum gate spill episodes. This creates a large gap in data in high water budget years.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: This is a substitution project for the blocked area. Kokanee are unique, indigenous derivative of the sockeye present prior to Grand Coulee Dam. The goal is to enhance a self-sustaining kokanee stock for tribal fishing and recreational use. Hatchery kokanee have been stocked in Lake Roosevelt since the 1940s. Natural kokanee production has been documented in 8 different tributaries. Adult returns to those tributaries have decreased and in some places completely stopped. The San Poil kokanee run is unique from other known kokanee stocks. The objective of this project is to determine the current population status, genetic analysis, and limiting factors (including entrainment) in order to develop enhancement measures. It appears that there is lots of good quality habitat and entrainment is the problem.Questions/Answers:
What type of enhancement measures might be recommended? Answer: We want to identify what the limiting factors are, where they are, and how to deal with the entrainment issue.
This is a lot of money for biosonics. Do you need monitor every penstock for 4 years? Answer: We are not monitoring every pen stock. We have 11 transducers (mounted on the roof of the turbine intakes) spread over 3 power houses. We must monitor every year because of the high variations in flow. We can't show a trend unless we know. We would like Bonneville, the Corps and the BOR to acknowledge that entrainment is a problem and then try to fix it. They want proof. The number of fish that go through the project is huge.
What about the rate of entrainment, can it be correlated to anything? Answer: It is difficult to correlate it to draft level or flow. High entrainment rates seem to come within weeks of net pen releases.
We have a distinct natural stock and we are stocking millions of hatchery fish on top of them. It is hard to believe that there is no straying or impact. Response: Harvest regulations and weirs minimize the impact. Very few hatchery fish show up at the weirs.
Are you experimenting with light and sound? Answer: Not yet. It is difficult to determining species composition now. This is a deep, wide area and our gill net sampling areas are limited. We do not have good data now.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes. Look at paring down sub-contractors costs.
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
Comment:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Lake Roosevelt Hatchery Proposals - Inadequate as a set
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is for one part of the work to determine the impacts of supplementation and management projects above Chief Joseph on the wild fish. Results of previous activities are not reported and it is hard to follow what is to be done. The production activities should be more closely linked with the two monitoring and evaluation programs.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,371,000 | $1,371,000 | $1,371,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website