FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199500100

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The task of assessing performance of two types of artificial winter cover for bass (obj 6, task a) seemed appropriate.

Salmonid tributary assessment and habitat structure placement has been conducted since 1996 at a cost of over $1 million. No description of the type of structures placed was provided. It was evident from the results presented that the structures did not in most cases result in an increase in native trout, but did in some cases benefit non-native salmonids. It appears from the proposal (obj. 2, task a) that further structure placement is proposed. The reviewers were not supportive of endorsing additional construction of structures based on results to date. Perhaps it is time to consider alternative hypotheses for addressing the problem. What evidence will indicate that habitat is limiting the population and needs to be enhanced?

Brook trout removal in selected streams (obj 5, task a) has merit in enhancing westslope cutthroat trout populations, and funding for that and its monitoring and evaluation continues to be supported. From the site visit, the LeClerc looks like an appropriate site for restoration and enhancement of westslope cutthroat populations. However, the proposal was not as convincing.

Section 5 Objective 1. What is the purpose of determining species distribution and abundance? How are the results interpreted?

Page 5, Goal 1: How will project personnel know when the goal is met?

Page 5. Goal 1, Objective 1: How will project personnel know when adult escapement is well distributed? What are the criteria for defining a "healthy spawning population" and how far are these populations from that level at present?

Comment:

Comment:

It is unfortunate that project personnel feel that they have to wait for a federal agency to provide objective goals for the fish populations when they seem capable of doing it themselves. The federal agency may be more than willing to accept what the project produces as needs for species viability. Work could then proceed in the core areas identified, and be directed to realistic, quantitative goals instead of the "proceed in the dark" approach now being followed while they wait for federal input.

The response provides information about the bass hatchery operation that is much clearer than that in the proposal. They re-cast the bass hatchery program as an experiment with evaluation methods and criteria. The goal is pretty modest - provide 12 lb/A of "harvestable" bass by the year 2008 (no mention of what fraction of those are to be hatchery fish). But then on page 6 of the response, there is a more detailed description of performance standards (need for 1.5 to 2 lifecycles @ 8-9 yrs, need for funding to determine assessment strategy, etc.) that seem unwarranted. The cost of ~ $150-250K per year to increase bass abundance by a few pounds per acre should be examined by the Council.

The stream rehabilitation portion of the response did (unlike the proposal) show evidence of an organized approach. Monitoring and evaluation of previous rehabilitation work, as well as additional stream survey work, should continue. Chemical removal of brook trout in upper Cee Cee Ah Creek should proceed.

Comment:

Comment:

The ISRP (p. 22) made a "fund in part" recommendation for Kalispel Tribe resident fishery project (199500100). The ISRP found no need for objective 2 of the project. Otherwise, continued implementation of the project is fundable. In the meantime, any proposed expansion of the existing program would need to be reviewed in the Council's "three-step" process.

Council recommendation: Fund with the elimination of objective 2 (section 5) of the project as recommended by the ISRP. The Council reads the ISRP report as raising significant enough concerns about the merit of the project that the project sponsors should take seriously the ISRP's request for an assessment of the project's performance before the beginning of the next provincial review for the Pend Oreille subbasin.

[Note: The Objective-based budgets for objectives 2 (section 5) were averaged, from the FY 2002 proposal, to establish fiscal year 2003 and 2004 costs]

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website