FY 2000 proposal 198503800

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: (1) The percent cost per objective is based upon current cooperation with other BPA funded projects implemented by the Tribe, Project personnel from BIA and Tribal funded Programs, if cooperation ceases to some objectives may not be met.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal is for a fish production project with subsequent monitoring and evaluation of fish performance through creel surveys, netting, and trapping. It is a long-term project for fish stocking on the Colville reservation (non-Lake Roosevelt) as mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam. It has a history of success, based on standard views of need. The proposal is fair, in the mid-range of those reviewed, but the absence of any linkage to FWP is conspicuous. The proposal includes a thorough listing of production related to goals. The list of revised objectives is detailed. There is good background, rationale/justification, and project history. The work includes M&E. No resumes were given for the staff, however.

A major deficiency is that the proposal does not address what attempts are being made to determine why performance objectives, in terms of catch per unit effort and condition, are generally not met. It also should better describe what attempts are being made to determine the factors limiting natural reproduction, another project objective. It appears that the approach to attaining these objectives is simply to stock fish, but this is a hit-or-miss approach and is not likely to be successful. Some of the monitoring and evaluation work could be tied to other projects in the area. The proposal overall could improve by demonstrating the project's linkages to others in the area. Any funding recommendation should be tentative pending results of the Council's artificial propagation review.

The proposal explains the justification for using non-native species, but questions persist as to whether that is consistent with goals of the FWP. Reviewers challenge the claim that this stocking program is good for native species (see page 17 of proposal). The stocking does not seem compatible with regional goals of fostering local species and stocks. Monitoring and evaluation seem to include only stocked non-native fish instead of including effects of stocking on all fish and the ecosystem. The proposal should address and monitor potential impacts on native biota.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: yes

Comment:

The response adequately answers the ISRP's reservations. Although not clearly listed in the proposal, the project does match FWP objectives and regional goals for introducing replacement fish to blocked areas as expressed in the FWP, even though regional attitudes about using non-native species are changing.

The proposers responded with an informative discussion of availability (lack) of native species on the reservation, the long history of stocking, and an overall discussion of the species substitution questions facing the Council and resource managers. The primary concern of the reviewers, that the emphasis of the hatchery program appears to be on non-native fishes is satisfactorily dealt with. Project managers explain what was not apparent to the reviewers, that waters in the Colville Tribal Reservation have been stocked with non-native species of fish since at least 1913. Because the U.S. Department of Interior has a duty in regard to the trust responsibility of the U. S. to Indian Tribes, the Fish and Wildlife Service for many years assumed responsibility for fish enhancement on the reservation (along with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, who asserted some authority, up until 1974). The end result is that native salmonids are no longer present in significant numbers, other than possibly in the upper reaches of some tributaries, which have not been surveyed. There is no source of brood stock for native species (which the tribe would prefer to use).

It is commendable that performance objectives in terms of catch are used rather than simply production objectives, and the project should not be penalized for incomplete evaluations in this direction. More ecosystem-oriented evaluations, including natural reproduction, are beginning, but may be difficult considering the long history of stocking. The response about the similar stocking practices of the tribe and WDFW regionally is the sort of project linkage information that the ISRP sought. We agree with the proposers' comment that change of the resident fish program toward more emphasis on locally native stocks is appropriately carried out as an adaptive process within the project rather than project termination. This hatchery should, however, remain part of the Council's overall evaluation of artificial production in the basin and abide by the eventual recommendations of that review.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website