FY 2000 proposal 20040

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: Successful implementation of this project is subject to concurrent funding of the umbrella project -- ShopaiGD1.doc

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal suggests a large effort for a very small budget. It contains information on the "vision" and conceptual basis of a management plan for the D.V.I.R., but lacks detail on the specific objectives and tasks associated with developing such a plan. The proposed work needs to be much more specific and systematic about the steps of plan development. Who will do it? How will objectives be identified? What evaluation criteria are possible? How will stakeholders participate in plan development? How will it be reviewed? What groups will be involved in implementation, revision, and enforcement? How will they be coordinated? What other consultations will be conducted? This proposal has the same deficiencies noted for the previous proposal (20536), but the plan to proceed with a year of detailed project planning is justified as of value to fish and wildlife.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- I question the need for the project. It is not cost effective. This should be either biologist or consultant funded, but not both and not at that rate for five years.

Programmatic Criteria: no- It is not an urgent threat to the populations.

Milestone Criteria: no-It is a planning effort.

General Comments: Separate wildlife from Resident fish components. Include task into 20536.

Comment:

Comment:

Five proposals for projects in the Owyhee Subbasin required separate evaluations in the judgement of the ISRP. These are new proposals from the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (DVIR) for development of a fish and wildlife program in the Owyhee Subbasin (proposal numbers 20040 – Develop a Fish and Wildlife Management Plan for the Owyhee Basin, 20041 – Develop a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Law Enforcement Plan, 20092 – Inventory Fish and Wildlife Populations of the Owyhee Basin, 20093 - Evaluate the Feasibility for Anadromous Fish Reintroduction in the Owyhee, and 20094 – Assess Resident Fish Stocks of the Owyhee Basin). (A sixth proposal, 20536, served as an umbrella for these.) Two of the proposals (20092 and 20093) were identified as innovative approaches.

Although individually the DVIR proposals each ranked in the lower mid-range of the 42 proposals reviewed, the ISRP finds it appropriate to separate these proposals for a specific recommendation for funding. Collectively, the proposals contain innovative projects of high programmatic value. There are currently 2 active projects in the subbasin, both for substitution of non-resident stocks to mitigate for lost fishes. The subbasin has no comprehensive wildlife program and no program for survey or management of native resident fishes. Individually, the 5 proposals received generally favorable reviews of the scientific and programmatic value of the scientific goals they presented (to inventory resident fish and wildlife and to develop plans and mechanisms for their management, including the possible use of native stocks in on-going resident fish substitution projects), but all suffered from lack of adequate methodological detail. Thus, all received recommendations of funding for 1 year, during which more detailed proposals could be prepared and reviewed for consideration of continuing funding. The ISRP concluded that a year’s work, including provision for use of consultants, as needed, could result in scientifically meritorious proposals in future years for implementation of the valuable scientific goals posed in the proposals submitted for FY2000.

The proposals provide a strong rationale that funding be awarded to initiate the native fish and wildlife program that these 5 proposals present, because of: 1) the absence of any current wildlife or resident fish survey or management programs, 2) the total blockage of the Owyhee by Hell’s Canyon Dam, and 3) the presence of potentially strong native stocks of redband trout in the Owyhee Subbasin. Further, since the current proposal solicitation and review process is under consideration of change, the important basic sub-basin survey work that is proposed could go undeveloped while the region develops a new proposal solicitation process. Funding for the development of a fish and wildlife inventory and subbasin plan in the Owyhee would further the proposed strategy to emphasize eco-province planning and peer review, which the ISRP supports.

The work outlined in the 5 DVIR proposals will address the 4 criteria proposed by the Council for highest priority of recommendation in that the survey work will provide 1) initial scoping of unimplemented Program elements (see below), 2) a promising approach to improve upon existing projects: inventory and research on native resident fishes, particularly redband trout, may lead to their use in the funded reservoir stocking programs in the Owyhee that currently use non-native fish, 3) systemwide significance: knowledge of the native stocks of the Owyhee is needed, and the development of integration of law enforcement with biological survey and educational work is potentially useful throughout the basin, and 4) sub-basin wide assessment and planning for an area that totally lacks such critical background data.

The Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program includes few measures targeted directly to the Owyhee subbasin. However, measure 10.8C.3 specifies that alternative sources of catchable resident fish should be evaluated as part of an approved resident fish substitution program that is being implemented there. Further, the priorities for implementation of resident fish policies include according highest priority to weak but recoverable native stocks and high priority to areas of the basin where anadromous fish are not present. By these criteria, inventory and study of native resident fish of the Owyhee, particularly stocks of redband trout, should be of high programmatic priority.

The ISRP recommends that the biological goals of the 5 proposals listed above be collected into a single proposal and that this overall proposal receive baseline funding for planning and initiation of the needed biological survey work. We suggest that the goals be collected into proposal 20040, the title of which, if modified to include the inventory function (e.g. “Develop a fish and wildlife inventory and management plan for the Owyhee Basin), well-describes the overall goals. The ISRP notes that the absence of the work that is proposed in these 5 new proposals will inhibit development of fish and wildlife programs for the Owyhee, and this critical planning problem should be addressed now, as it will facilitate the coordinated planning efforts that Council supports and has proposed to expand. Future more detailed proposals, which could continue or perhaps expand the work, could be reviewed when the Owyhee subbasin comes under review in the new proposal solicitation process.

Comment: