FY 2000 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

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Project has ended a three year enhancement phase. Monitoring and evaluation of the enhancement measures started in 1997 and will continue through 2001. Biological objectives are set for 2003, 2008 and 2016.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This was a well prepared and thorough proposal. The FWP and 4 other plans are referenced. There are two other related projects, 9700400 and 9700300. There are clearly two projects wrapped into one here, one on trout in tributaries and the other on largemouth bass in the reservoir. The distinction between the two types of work seems to have been well justified, although the value of each needs to be considered separately. The prospect of supplementing largemouth bass in the reservoir was surprising (considering general abandonment of largemouth bass stocking as ineffective in most other parts of the country). The list of objectives was complete. There is a good pre-and post-enhancement monitoring plan. The objectives, methods, and facilities narratives were good. Based upon the criteria provided for evaluation, the proposal is technically sound. It is one of the few with clearly stated and measurable objectives. Also, methods are concisely related to objectives. Relationship to other projects and budget sections are a bit weak. Nonetheless, when taken on balance, this project proposal is above average.

Nonetheless, the review team had a number of problems with specific aspects of this project. First is the enhancement project for salmonid fishes in the tributaries. These may be effective in terms of increasing abundance in the short term, but do not do much to enhance long term population viability. It appears the populations are all highly isolated from each other and, thus in the long term highly susceptible to extinction from a variety of potential causes. The proposer did not adequately explain why these populations should be protected and enhanced. Sustainability of small trout populations in tributaries is questionable, likely leading to perpetual supplementation.

Next is the bass supplementation program. Philosophically the group was in support of efforts to assess and enhance habitats for native species and not enthusiastic about enhancing and supplementing largemouth bass populations. It does not appear that bass spawning habitat is limited, so it is not clear why the habitat improvements are not conducted first to see if natural reproduction is capable of sustaining a viable fishery. It is not clear if hatchery production is to be sustained by a captive broodstock or fish collected from the wild. If the former, the number of adults used is far too small to maintain genetic variation and long term viability. Are they monitoring ecological impacts of bass?

This proposal responds well to the ISRP's FY99 comments, but there continues to be a question regarding the potential conflict between enhancing trout habitat and releasing largemouth bass. The proposers should focus on improving over-winter habitat for naturally producing bass, rather than pursuing bass supplementation. There is too much experience with ineffective (unnecessary) bass supplementation elsewhere in the country to support it here.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- There is no long term mitigation plan. They need to clearly explain and justify the milestones.

Comment:

Considerable concern about whether BPA should be involved in introducing or maintaining non-native species. The project benefits bass but it is unclear whether it benefits trout. Proposal does not demonstrate that bass won't impact trout.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website