Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Project Number:
1994-043-00
Title:
Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Summary:
The Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program (LRFEP) is a cooperative program comprised of the Spokane Tribe of Indians (STOI), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT), Eastern Washington University (EWU) and other subcontractors. The project is multi-functional, but a primary focus is to assess the performance of the Lake Roosevelt artificial production program, which is comprised of the STOI, WDFW, CCT and Lake Roosevelt Volunteer Net Pen Project. The artificial production program is tasked with producing kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and redband trout for annual releases into Lake Roosevelt. The intent of the program is to continue to evaluate the performance of hatchery fish, their effect on other resident fish and the ecology of the reservoir, and to examine the effects of hydro-operations on the artificial production program, the native fishery, and the Lake Roosevelt ecology as a whole.

Specific objectives of the proposed project include continuing to conduct fisheries, limnological and zooplankton surveys to monitor changes in the reservoir fishery and ecology over time, assess recruitment, adult returns and food availability for fish, assess wild kokanee movement and thermal preference within the reservoir, provide data to modeling efforts, conduct hydroacoustic surveys to examine limnetic fish distribution, assess limiting factors for kokanee and rainbow trout, conduct a re-designed reservoir-wide creel survey, and investigate kokanee immigration into Lake Roosevelt from British Columbia, Canada.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Spokane Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1994
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Columbia Upper 100.00%
Purpose:
Hydrosystem
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Burbot
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Crappie, White
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pike, Northern
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Trout, Brown
OBSOLETE-Trout, Lake
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Other Resident
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $1,314,199 $1,606,680 $1,729,697 $1,482,597 $1,271,667

General $1,537,151 $1,654,844 $1,418,438 $1,216,636
General - Within Year $69,529 $74,853 $64,159 $55,031
FY2017 (Current) $1,354,199 $1,579,199 $1,579,199 $1,826,299 $1,523,387

General $1,314,199 $1,314,199 $1,519,834 $1,267,752
Fish Accord - Colville $225,000 $225,000 $260,206 $217,048
Cost Savings $40,000 $40,000 $46,259 $38,586
FY2018 (Next) $1,345,948 $1,345,948 $7,750 $7,750 $0

General $1,345,948 $7,750 $7,750 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $1,314,199 From: General FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2016 Expense $8,507 From: General - Within Year February FY16 02/10/2016
FY2016 Expense $8,507 To: General - Within Year 1994-043-00 FY16 02/22/2016
FY2016 Expense $69,529 From: General - Within Year 1994-043-00 FY16 BOG 04/26/2016
FY2016 Expense $200,000 From: General Sept FY16 Uploads 09/27/2016
FY2016 Expense $22,952 From: General Sept FY16 Uploads 09/27/2016
FY2017 Expense $1,354,199 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $225,000 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfers (various) 11/23/2016 11/23/2016
FY2017 Expense $40,000 To: General Northern Pike Suppression 12/09/2016
FY2017 Expense $40,000 From: Cost Savings Northern Pike Suppression 12/09/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,345,948 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  Yes


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 3 %
FY2014 3 %
FY2013 3 %
FY2012 2 %
FY2011 3 %
FY2010 3 %
FY2009 4 %
FY2008 3 %
FY2007 4 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 (Unspecified Org) $0
FY2015 BC Hydro $0
FY2015 Colville Confederated Tribes $1,700
FY2015 Spokane Tribe $22,000
FY2015 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) $14,200

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
5756 SOW Spokane Tribe 1994-043-00 LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION History $2,177,964 4/1/2001 - 7/31/2003
14804 SOW Spokane Tribe 1994-043-00 LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION History $1,864,153 8/1/2003 - 7/31/2005
24144 SOW Spokane Tribe 199404300 EXP LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION History $929,782 9/1/2005 - 7/31/2006
28591 SOW Spokane Tribe 1994-043-00 EXP LK. ROOSEVELT DATA COLL. History $889,265 8/1/2006 - 7/31/2007
73335 SOW Spokane Tribe 1994-043-00 EXP LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION Issued $1,729,697 8/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
73548 REL 1 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1994-043-00 EXP NON-NATIVE PREDATOR REMOVAL Issued $225,000 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
76786 SOW Spokane Tribe 1994-043-00 EXP LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION Issued $1,354,199 8/1/2017 - 7/31/2018
BPA-010020 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Active $7,750 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):67
Completed:28
On time:28
Status Reports
Completed:60
On time:46
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5756 14804, 24144, 28591, 33799, 38572, 43471, 48768, 53923, 58142, 62338, 65961, 69860, 73335, 76786 1994-043-00 LAKE ROOSEVELT DATA COLLECTION Spokane Tribe 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 59 185 20 0 50 255 80.39% 0
73548 REL 1 1994-043-00 EXP NON-NATIVE PREDATOR REMOVAL Colville Confederated Tribes 02/2017 02/2017 Issued 1 1 4 0 0 5 100.00% 0
BPA-010020 PIT Tags - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 60 186 24 0 50 260 80.77% 0


Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1994-043-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - viable hatchery kokanee fishery
The sponsors should establish a scientifically justified timeline, decision points, and criteria for determining whether a viable hatchery kokanee fishery can be established lake-wide, or if the goals of the hatchery kokanee program should be modified. A decision tree should be developed to aid in this process.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2 - mixed stock/mixed species fishery
Similarly, the sponsors should establish a scientifically justified timeline, decision points, and criteria for determining whether a mixed stock/mixed species fishery can be established lake-wide. A decision tree should be developed to aid in this process.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3 - clarify the differences between Deliverables 3 and 4.
The sponsors should clarify the differences between Deliverables 3 and 4.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4 - whether the angler is a tribal member
The creel survey should include an inquiry about whether the angler is a tribal member. Data for subsistence and recreational fisheries should be analyzed and presented separately to determine whether the goal of creating a subsistence fishery is being achieved.
Qualification #5 - Qualification #5 - See the ISRP’s programmatic comments on fish stocking.
See the ISRP's programmatic comments on fish stocking.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The sponsors face the daunting task of establishing a mixed stock/mixed species subsistence and recreational fishery for hatchery and wild kokanee and rainbow trout as well as walleye and smallmouth bass. They have had to deal with a multitude of complex and interacting problems having to do with unpredictable hydro-operations and high rates of predation on juvenile kokanee and trout by walleye and smallmouth bass.

The sponsors have tried to improve the fishery by using different parental stocks of kokanee and rainbow trout, and changing the timing, location and size of fish released. Despite these efforts, success has been largely limited to establishment of a put-and-take fishery for hatchery kokanee in one area of the reservoir and increased returns in some years of spawners to one tributary. Rearing rainbow trout in net pens, however, has augmented the fishery.

Furthermore, the sponsors have had little success in establishing naturally reproducing runs of redband rainbow trout and kokanee which was one of their objectives. The sponsors candidly acknowledge that, after nearly 20 years of trying, they have as yet been unable to achieve their goal of establishing a viable hatchery kokanee fishery: “The goals of developing a fishery that could be utilized for subsistence and recreational purposes as well as be self-sustaining had not been reached, despite extensive monitoring and adaptive management based on study results.” In the ISRP’s 2007-09 review of this project and follow-up review of the Lake Roosevelt Guidance Document (ISRP 2009-16), we expressed concern about whether it is reasonable to establish a viable kokanee fishery lake-wide given the complex problems limiting kokanee in the reservoir. The ISRP’s concern is still largely valid. 

The ISRP fully appreciates the desire of the tribes to maintain a salmon fishery for spiritual, cultural, and subsistence purposes, and the political and public pressures on managers. We commend the sponsors for their effort in trying to deal with the multitude of problems encumbering establishment of a kokanee fishery. We recommend, however, that the sponsors objectively assess their successes and lack of success, and establish a reasonable, scientifically justified timeline, decision points and criteria for determining whether a viable hatchery kokanee fishery as well as a mixed stock/mixed species fishery can be established lake-wide, or whether the goals of the hatchery kokanee program should be modified. In other words, how long will the current hatchery kokanee program continue until a decision is made about whether it can succeed? The ISRP made a similar recommendation in our 2007-09 review. 

Given the above caveats, the objectives seem reasonable and will allow the sponsors to continue to assess harvest, fish abundance and distribution, and limnological conditions in the reservoir, all of which will help determine whether their goals can be met. Restoration of naturally spawning kokanee and redband rainbow trout is worth trying although success to date has been limited. Objective 4, “Complete a baseline assessment of mussel populations in Lake Roosevelt,” is well justified as this mollusk was once an important food resource for Native Americans and little is known about its distribution and abundance.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The presentation of results was detailed, thoughtfully prepared, and very long. In future proposals the presentation should be more concise but still be comprehensive. Data should be presented in tables and figures, as was done in the project presentation, rather than in the body of the text. This would make it easier for reviewers to examine data trends. Results should be organized around objectives for each stock or species. Major conclusions should be stated clearly and succinctly, and be supported by data. 

Predation by walleye and smallmouth bass appears to be a major source of mortality of juvenile salmonids. Success of the hatchery program depends in large part on whether the predator control program is effective. The sponsors should be given the opportunity to pursue a predator control strategy. The ISRP, however, feels that a more aggressive predator control program than the one currently in place is needed. Less restrictive regulations on walleye have been instituted by WDFW but as yet they have not met the annual harvest goal estimated to be needed to control the walleye population. A more aggressive approach such as that instituted by the Colville Tribes is a step in the right direction. The sponsors should be able to demonstrate substantial progress in significantly reducing the walleye population and increasing fry survival within the next five years. 

The sponsors state that the purpose of the more liberalized regulations for walleye and smallmouth bass harvest is “to achieve balance between predators and non-native and focal fish.” The sponsors should clearly explain what they mean “balance” and quantitatively how it will be assessed. 

We recognize the problems in estimating actual abundance of fish species in a large reservoir, and so we can understand the sponsors’ reliance on relative abundance estimates. But relative abundance is of limited value and even can be misleading because it may not relate directly to actual abundance of a species. The ISRP in their 2007-09 review expressed a similar concern. We suggest that, in lieu of actual abundance estimates, the sponsors present, preferably in figures or tabular form, total catch and CPUE as well as relative abundance for both survey and angler catches. 

There have been many "adjustments" or adaptive management switches over the years as a result of the findings of this project. Various adaptive modifications in the program have been made in an attempt to establish a viable salmonid fishery.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors are addressing the emerging limiting factor of non-native fish impacts by instituting predator control measures. They state that their monitoring program will allow them to detect effects of climate change, but they do not discuss how this will be done. They also do not discuss possible climate change impacts on reservoir limnology and fish populations. It seems that climate change could exacerbate non-native predator fish problems. 

The M&E program is designed to monitor changes in fish abundance and distribution as well as limnological conditions in the reservoir. The sponsors are collecting a large amount of data. It would be helpful if they explained how the data will be analyzed and related to changes in fish abundance. The redband assessment is emphasized more than in previous efforts. The sponsors should make sure data gathered addresses critical issues and avoid gathering data only to fill data gaps.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverable 1 pertains to collection of creel data. One of the major goals of this project is to establish a subsistence fishery for tribal members. The creel survey should include an inquiry about whether the angler is a tribal member. Data for subsistence and recreational fisheries should be analyzed and presented separately to determine whether the goal of creating a subsistence fishery is being achieved.

Deliverables 3 and 4 appear to be very similar. Both propose to collect fish and limnological data, although Deliverable 4 also mentions specific methods for sampling walleye and pike. The differences between these two Deliverables should be clarified. 

Regarding the mussel abundance portion of the project (Deliverable 5), the sponsors plan to use a standard AFS Monograph protocol; and regarding genetics, sponsors plan to use the approach and design used successfully by Brim-Box et al. for the Umatilla River. 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:35:32 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-1994-043-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through FY 2017. Sponsors to co-lead in development and submission of a Kokanee Plan for Lake Roosevelt with partners WDFW (1991-047-00) and STOI (1991-046-00 and 1994-043-00) called for in the current ISRP Review and previous ISRP Review Document 2009-16. Final plan to be submitted by March 2013 to inform implementation in 2014 and beyond. ISRP qualifications 3 and 4 to be addressed in contracting. Council expects that sponsors will coordinate with other BPA-funded native western mussel activities in the Basin. Refer to Data Mgmt Review and Rec's (Part 3) for data collection and database aspects of the project.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1994-043-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: M&E of Lake Roosevelt hatchery programs; fishery managers authorized/required as well; need confirmation that cost share is adequate.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1994-043-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal is substantially improved from those of the past and now is beginning to more clearly identify the serious problem that management of the aquatic resources of Lake Roosevelt poses. Technical information regarding the scope and nature of the problem is more adequately presented here, as it is in the new Guiding Document prepared for Lake Roosevelt. There should be a continuation of this more rigorous analysis of results and potentially a redesign of the program to assess whether fishery desires are realistic given the community dynamics and physical constraints in the system. Much future improvement is needed in such critical analysis, with more targeted monitoring, and better-organized proposals. Lake Roosevelt managers face a daunting political task in trying to satisfy a diversity of (sometimes conflicting) user groups, given an artificial water body containing a mix of target species and other organisms that is largely unnatural. The response brings this out and shows they are contending with the situation about as well as could be reasonably expected.

Responses were requested regarding two issues: the role of walleye and the role of rainbow trout. The proposal left reviewers concerned that the scientific credibility of the project seemed to be compromised by the complex mix of variables and the hope that fishery benefits for kokanee and rainbow trout can be enhanced without altering the predator populations. The response provided some clarification regarding the issue of walleye management. The additional information about walleye size distribution was helpful. Reviewers appreciate the sponsor' intent to make a series of gradual regulation changes (that are politically acceptable) to reduce walleye numbers and thus reduce their predation on kokanee. Lacking in the response, however, was an assessment of the extent to which the increased bag limit will affect walleye abundance. Also, reviewers repeat the comment regarding the limited value of relative abundance estimates and note that sooner or later a better estimator of predator (especially walleye) abundance will be needed.

Regarding rainbow trout, the response provided evidence that expanding the rainbow trout netpen rearing project would be expected to have minimal negative effects on kokanee, and reviewers concerns are dispelled. The netpen project, that this project provides technical support to, would increase redband rainbow production and move toward an entirely triploid release of rainbow trout. These are reasonable and supportable efforts. The ISRP recommends that only female triploids be stocked, because male triploids (in mixed sex production lots) will engage in courtship behavior with native trout, possibly leading to gamete waste (from the native trout). The ISRP notes that standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocols are not yet established for using sterile female triploids to provide recreational angling in waters inhabited by native trout. Large-scale production of triploid female rainbow trout is not 100% effective. Sponsors should have the production lots they stock evaluated for the percentage of triploids, and report this as part of the project monitoring. The efficacy of avoiding hybridization between stocked and native trout is unknown when less than 100% of the stocked fish are triploids. Ongoing evaluation of hybridization in contemporaneous native trout populations will be needed in the future. Stocking triploid females to provide recreational angling in regions with highly sensitive native populations is not yet justified. See Kozfkay, J. R., J. C. Dillon, and D. J. Schill. 2006. Routine use of sterile fish in salmonid sport fisheries: are we there yet? Fisheries 31(8):392 - 401.

Reviewers acknowledge their awareness of the historic and cultural significance of kokanee for sponsors in the Lake Roosevelt system. Reviewers' perception of the kokanee situation is that the project is trying to counteract the extremely poor results from stocking hatchery kokanee mainly by trying "fixes" of the hatchery and stocking program -- and some changes in harvest regulations. None have been adequate yet, and it is far from convincing that any of those proposed will be effective. A new approach is noted in the proposal that would more closely mimic the wild kokanee population, and that appears a more defensible position. Reviewers suggest that project personnel continue to investigate whether it is reasonable to try to have a kokanee fishery in the lake proper, other than that provided by naturally reproducing fish. Evidence to date suggests (to reviewers) that, in the face of entrainment losses, artificial production of kokanee is likely futile until the walleye population is managed appropriately (which probably cannot be done) and until lake water levels can be better managed for kokanee spawning.

Great improvement was seen in information transfer. It is commendable to see material being published in major scientific journals.

Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-043-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1994-043-00 - Lake Roosevelt Data Collection
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Carlos Matthew Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Brent Nichols Project Lead Spokane Tribe
Ted Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Suzanne Frye Administrative Contact Bonneville Power Administration