FY 1999 proposal 199104600
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 |
|---|---|
| 199104600 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Spokane Tribal (Galbraith Springs) Hatchery O&M |
| Proposal ID | 199104600 |
| Organization | Spokane Tribe of Indians (STOI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Peone |
| Mailing address | Spokane Tribal Hatchery -POB 100 Wellpinit, WA 99040 |
| Phone / email | 5092587297 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Operate and maintain the Spokane Tribal Hatchery to provide kokanee salmon and rainbow trout fishery in Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake. |
| Target species | kokanee rainbow trout |
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 | $150,000 | |
| Fringe | $29,000 | |
| Supplies | $11,000 | |
| Operating | $157,000 | |
| Capital | $20,000 | |
| Travel | $5,000 | |
| Indirect | $76,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $5,000 | |
| $453,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $453,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $453,000 |
| 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: Kokanee brood/egg source; water quality and quantity, and; reservoir operations.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: The Spokane Tribal hatchery is part of a collaborative effort to restore and enhance Lake Roosevelt. The hatchery arose from a 1987 Council amendment and was built in 1991 by BPA. Grand Coulee Dam completely blocked anadromous fish passage and caused an 80% loss of habitat suitable for salmonids. A feasibility report concluded that fish populations in Lake Roosevelt were not large enough to sustain anything other than a seasonal fishery and recommended large- scale hatcheries to supply rainbow trout and kokanee to the lake and tributaries. The hatchery production goals (13.5 million kokanee fry and 500,000 rainbow trout) were developed before the hatchery was on line and were based on assumptions that weren't accurate. The lake has warmer water and a lower volume than originally planned. The hatchery oversight team has lowered the 1999 production goals to 500,000 kokanee yearlings (255,000 of which go to Sherman Creek), 960,000 kokanee fingerlings, and 530,000 rainbow trout. Production is now double what it was designed for. There is some cost sharing involved with trapping in the tributaries.Questions/Answers:
Are the fish transferred to the net pens? Answer: The kokanee produced here go to an existing net pen program which we are using to indicate the success with kokanee. We had a surplus of kokanee and decided to rear them in net pens. These fish do not go into the kokanee net pen project 9094.
Explain the $83,000 in utility costs? Answer: We put in a new well and run two 50 hp pumps.
Comment: There are three facilities putting fish in Lake Roosevelt. It seems like a lot of fish. Answer: We coordinate activities.
Are you going to blacktop roads? Answer: This year the road will be improved.
What is the output into Lake Roosevelt? Answer: The hatchery is monitored and evaluated by the Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Program (9404300).
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
Comment:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Lake Roosevelt Hatchery Proposals - Inadequate as a set
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The ISRP had many unanswered questions about work described in this proposal. The project type "supplementation" is listed in the table but not explained. "Supplementation" does not correspond to the way Sherman Creek Hatchery fish will be used (project 9104700). The genetic and ecological effects of hatchery fish on wild fish or other organisms are an important scientific concern, but are not adequately considered in the proposal. Monitoring and evaluation are left to another proposed project, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation and makes scientific evaluation of the proposal difficult.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: |
| $536,000 | $536,000 | $536,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website