FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 200106600
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 |
|---|---|
| 26027 Narrative | Narrative |
| Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lake Roosevelt/Colville Tribes Emergency Fish Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 200106600 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Richard LeCaire |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA. 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342124 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / Lake Roosevelt |
| Short description | Replace rainbow trout entrained/lost as a result of emergency power generation at Grand Coulee Dam during an extreme low water year. |
| Target species | Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.1248 | -118.2426 | Lake Roosevelt |
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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 | Purchase 24 thousand lbs of triploid rainbow trout to out plant as yearlings @ $1.31/lb. | One time | $31,440 | Yes |
| Purchase 8 thousand lbs of triploid rainbow trout to seed net pen project @.60 each | $81,600 | Yes | ||
| Objective 2 | Purchase 4 pen complex @ $34,000.00 with 18 inch walkway and safety railing X4 | One time | $136,000 | |
| Operate net pen complex 8 months | 8 months | $0 | ||
| Provide fuel to transport fish from farm to lake. 30 trips X 160 ave. X 800 gallons diesel@ $1.75/gallon | $1,400 | |||
| Objective 3 | Task A) Purchase 20,000 floy tags @ $410.00/1000 | 1 time | $8,200 | |
| Task B) Tag triploid steelhead | 1 time | $3,600 |
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Retag fish, 6 people @ $15.00/hr X 5 days | $3,600 |
| Travel | Fuel to transport fish 800 gallon fuel at $1.75 | $1,400 |
| Capital | Purchase 4 net pen complexes complete with 18 inch walk and safety handrail @$34,000.00 each | $136,000 |
| PIT Tags | 20,000 Floy tags @$410.00/1000 | $8,200 |
| Subcontractor | Columbia River Fish Farm | $113,040 |
| Other | Contract Administration @ 4% of contract total | $10,490 |
| $272,729 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $272,729 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $272,730 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Fundable, ranked in the bottom of the B list. This well-prepared proposal meets the solicitation criteria, but does not address the highest priority populations targeted under this solicitation - e.g. ESA listed or other native, wild stocks. The benefits of this proposal are for the fishers and consumers of fish, not the fish populations. If that is one of the intentions of this solicitation then the proposal is fine. This is a simple fish out planting (stocking) project for 2001 to replace non-anadromous rainbow trout lost (entrained) from Lake Roosevelt when it was drafted severely in 2001 for the emergency flows. Lost fish means lost fishing activity on the lake and lost regional revenue from fishing and related activities. The proposed project is a one-time activity. Fish would come from commercial suppliers but the project would be overseen by the regional hatchery and net-pen personnel. Part of the fish would be stocked into the lake and part would be raised in net pens for later release. The proposal incorporates the cost of additional net pens to accommodate rearing some of the new fish, an acquisition that will have lasting benefits for the ongoing net-pen project (199509000).Reviewers note that the proposed strategy could backfire; they could create a worse fishery. There is the potential to create a population that exceeds food and space resources that could result in poor growth and survival of the planted fish. Because population density will influence the survival of the planted fish, it is unclear how results of the tagging study will be evaluated?
Comment:
Comment: