FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199500900

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Hiring of part time helper.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

There is a clearly identified problem in sustaining a reservoir fishery in the face of large amount of entrainment of fish through Grand Coulee Dam and lack of spawning habitat. The rationale and significance are well described. There are good relationships with other projects. In fact, the net pens are integral (and final) to the interlocking sequence of fish movements between adult capture, hatching, rearing, and release that involve other multiple facilities and a planning committee (the oral presentation of this project did the best job of explaining the whole sequence). The history is well described. Objectives are clearly explained in relation to fishery benefits. Methods are clear. Monitoring and evaluation are well formulated and handled by the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program. Facilities are appropriate. The volunteer efforts are laudable. The proposers do an excellent job of providing information to the public, which is essential to maintaining a volunteer work force. There is clear benefit to fish, judged in terms of human use through fisheries. The project meets all consistency criteria.

Some details of the proposal raised comment by the reviewers. Section c (Rationale and Significance) contains unsupported statements in 2nd paragraph of p. 5 concerning (lack of effect on?) genetic integrity of native rainbow trout and, as in other projects of this province, the idea that stocking hatchery fish "tends to reduce harvest of native stocks thereby helping to enhance their recovery." These points are relevant on a broader basis than just this one project, and warrant further evaluation on a subbasin basis. On the positive side, reviewers were pleased to see some mention of a goal for angler harvest: 500,000 fish released for 190,000 fish in creel, (p5) overall 35-57% harvest. This is not great, but probably in an acceptable range. The claim is that "survivors spawn along shoreline in autumn, not in tributaries with native rainbows in spring" should be substantiated somewhere. The possible issue of dilution of native rainbow stocks because of successful spawning by netpen survivors is of concern here.

Comment:

Comment:

There is a clearly identified problem in sustaining a reservoir fishery in the face of large amount of entrainment of fish through Grand Coulee Dam and lack of spawning habitat. The rationale and significance are well described. There are good relationships with other projects. In fact, the net pens are integral (and final) to the interlocking sequence of fish movements between adult capture, hatching, rearing, and release that involve other multiple facilities and a planning committee (the oral presentation of this project did the best job of explaining the whole sequence). The history is well described. Objectives are clearly explained in relation to fishery benefits. Methods are clear. Monitoring and evaluation are well formulated and handled by the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program. Facilities are appropriate. The volunteer efforts are laudable. The proposers do an excellent job of providing information to the public, which is essential to maintaining a volunteer work force. There is clear benefit to fish, judged in terms of human use through fisheries. The project meets all consistency criteria.

Some details of the proposal raised comment by the reviewers. Section c (Rationale and Significance) contains unsupported statements in 2nd paragraph of p. 5 concerning (lack of effect on?) genetic integrity of native rainbow trout and, as in other projects of this province, the idea that stocking hatchery fish "tends to reduce harvest of native stocks thereby helping to enhance their recovery." These points are relevant on a broader basis than just this one project, and warrant further evaluation on a subbasin basis. On the positive side, reviewers were pleased to see some mention of a goal for angler harvest: 500,000 fish released for 190,000 fish in creel, (p5) overall 35-57% harvest. This is not great, but probably in an acceptable range. The claim is that "survivors spawn along shoreline in autumn, not in tributaries with native rainbows in spring" should be substantiated somewhere. The possible issue of dilution of native rainbow stocks because of successful spawning by netpen survivors is of concern here.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website