FY 2000 proposal 199501100

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: High water years cause trapping problems, flood events, and destroy sites and equipment. Large water regimes cause spill episones that are essential;l un-monitored. Currently, the project is a single drum gate (eight tolat) where spill takes place in high water years.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project has two major elements, stock assessment and assessment of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam. In many respects, this project is the keystone for justifying the extensive artificial production of fish for stocking in Lake Roosevelt. The proposal is not well prepared, does not express its objectives well, and cannot be recommended for funding. CBFWA notes that the project is not cost effective, and that it has already fulfilled its objectives. The work is related to the FWP and to 3 other projects for coordination of sampling, staff, data, and equipment. Only administrative accomplishments are presented, and the narrative states that no biological opinions have been reached. Many typos in the proposal suggest hasty and sloppy work, which may be indicative of the approach to the project. There is no cost sharing. The project description seems to be an odd mix of subjects, the rationale is vague, and no project history is given. Notwithstanding a large budget for subcontracted work, no information is provided on the research to be done under the subcontract (experimental design, etc.). The reviewers can only conclude that the proposal is not based on sound scientific principles.

The reviewers agreed that the proposal is unacceptable as a statement of work to be done, even if it seems to be important work. The entrainment estimates may be the key to the whole Lake Roosevelt hatchery and stocking program. The fundamental question is whether it is better to allow entrainment and continually restock fish (at considerable perpetual cost to BPA) or to reduce the entrainment. There are techniques available for reducing entrainment of kokanee in the discharges of large storage dams (e.g., strobe lights demonstrated in Lake Pend Oreille and at Dworshak). Also, it appears that an assemblage of poorly related work was developed to fit a monetary amount rather than having costs track a set of well-justified work to be done. The proposal needs better description of what is to be analyzed. Subcontract work needs to be included as an integral part of the proposal (objectives, methods, etc.).

The work seems especially important, and if the present project organization and staff cannot do a proper job, then funding of another organization to do it might be considered.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no-This already fulfilled it's objectives. The proposal is poorly written and tasks & accomplishments as well as objectives are not well presented.

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-Most of the objectives are really tasks and not true milestones.

General comments: This is not cost effective.

Comment:

The present study design makes no mention of how they will assess the significance of entrainment relative to the total population. Is there a creel survey? Suppose the hydroacoustic methods were successful in estimating the total number of kokanee entrained. What portion of the total population does that represent? Is it a large percentage or small? We understand there may be some marked kokanee present in the fishery, resulting from releases of fish reared in net pens. Would it not be possible to develop a total population estimate, knowing the number of kokanee released and the percentage they make up of the catch (in a sample of the catch)?

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: This project has two major elements, (1) stock assessment, and (2) an assessment of entrainment through Grand Coulee Dam. Specifically, this project is designed to determine the stock status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee. High entrainment rates are suspected through Grand Coulee Dam. The stock assessment work seems especially important. The status of naturally producing kokanee, spawning escapement, genetic analysis of populations and natural production strength for weak unique wild stocks are crucial. Collection of this data is underway, but not yet complete Regarding the entrainment issue, the Colville Tribe has indicated that a report containing hydroacoustic data is due from their subcontractor at the end of December. The tribe requests 90 days after the data is provided in order to conduct an analysis of entrainment totals by powerhouse, turbine, diel and monthly periods. Identification of the hydropower operation responsible for the highest entrainment will also be included. In their report, the tribe will address ISRP questions regarding the significance of entrainment relative to the total population, as identified in the second review, to the extent possible. The hydroacoustic analysis report is to be submitted to the Council in March. A study design for the strobe light and fish behavior work should be submitted to the Council by June 15th, and subsequently reviewed by the ISAB or ISRP.

ISRP Review: Do not fund (both reviews). The ISRP states, "The proposal continues to be inadequate with respect to plans for meeting those objectives that have not been met or have only partly been met. However, the work is important and plans should be made for development of a scientifically sound study.

Sponsor Policy Response: The Colville Confederated Tribes responded to 4 of the overriding policy issue criteria: Criteria "b" and "c": The project is an adopted program measure (measure 10.8B.7) and provides data and analysis that address elements identified in measure 10.8B.8. Entrainment of 300,000-800,000 fish annually undoubtedly impacts the fishery in Lake Roosevelt and puts at risk the effectiveness of mitigation measures for anadromous fish losses in the "blocked area" (resident fish substitution). Criteria "d": Not funding the Chief Joseph Kokanee Project also represents a significant and immediate risk to the wild "unique" stock of kokanee identified in the San Poil and Nespelem drainages and jeopardizes existing fisheries opportunities in Lake Roosevelt. The existing project funds support two important project objectives, including monitoring adult spawner escapement and genetic evaluation of the free ranging reservoir and tributary populations of kokanee. Criteria "e": In addition to the potential loss of a wild kokanee stock and risk to the overall Lake Roosevelt fishery, a unique funding opportunity exists to address the entrainment issue at Grand Coulee. As a result of entrainment estimates at Grand Coulee and direction by the ISRP, the Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation have collaborated in the development of a pilot strobe light study at Grand Coulee.

Council Recommendation: The Colville Confederated Tribe has been working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the USGS, WDFW, and the Spokane Tribe to secure cost sharing for the strobe light study. The cost share opportunity over a three-year period may contribute close to $1million dollars to this effort. Because of the appropriations process, the Bureau and USGS contribution will not be available until 2002 and is earmarked for the strobe light application at Grand Coulee. It is imperative that the preliminary baseline data be in place to take full advantage of the cost share opportunity.

The Council recommends funding for the stock assessment work, which includes field investigation elements such as stock status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee. Fund the hydroacoustics analysis report, to include the ISRP questions, with the report due at the end of March. Fund CCT participation in the development of the strobe light/fish behavior study design due on June 15th. Fund training for CCT staff on the fish tracking system. Total recommended funding is $317,057.

The Council recommends that the Corps, Bureau and Bonneville, in conjunction with a Council staff member, work to identify if a funding mechanism for a Bureau of Reclamation project can be found for available dollars in the capital construction budget category. For Fiscal Year 2000, capital expenses for a sonic tracking system and 20 sonic tags is expected to cost about $104,000. For Fiscal Year 2000, fund the capital expense from the capital budget category, if possible. If a mechanism for funding cannot be found, the Council will consider funding from the direct program. The Council is willing to consider funding for this project because the ISRP and sponsor indicate that the time to do the work is now, the ISRP states that the work is important, and because of the cost-share opportunity. ISRP concerns will need to be addressed at all applicable decision-making stages.

The Council encourages the sponsor to address the ISRP concerns, whatever budget category provides funds. Should the Council need to ultimately recommend direct program funds, it will require that the sponsor adequately address the ISRP's criticisms of the project. The Council is relying upon the ISRP's statement regarding the importance of the proposed work in its decision to keep a recommendation for direct program funding open as a possibility.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website