FY 2000 proposal 199501300

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: Scheduled development at new sites is dependent on the completion of NEPA permitting requirements, and environmental analyses.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal is in need of clearly defined objectives and substantial editorial revision to avoid (or to succinctly define) such references as "a multi-species ecosystem approach," "water quality and habitat problems" and "environmental conditions that limit fishery success." To what approaches, problems and conditions do the proponents refer? Are tribal members capturing a significant number of the fish stocked and/or is all the harvest designated for tribal members? If not, are there fees, creel limits, etc. for non-tribal members? How is harvest monitored? What strains of fish are used in the pond? Are five full-time people truly required for the project? If so, experiments with species combinations and densities should be possible. Future proposals should offer more data on past accomplishments and performance of various ponds or fisheries, particularly with the manpower involved.

A serious concern among reviewers was a statement indicating that a "multi-species ecosystem approach" involving trout, bass, and sturgeon is to be used. What species of trout, bass, or sturgeon are considered? The approach on its face seems infeasible because trout and bass are not compatible. This leads to a lack of confidence in the proposal and concern that the work is not based on sound science principles. The proposal states that "both the Deer Creek and Cold Springs sites were considered suitable," but neglects to say in what respects and for what? Material in the proposal is needlessly repetitive; for example, much of the project history is repeated in the methods section

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes- The sponsor was not able to clarify budget concerns. budget should be investigated for criteria 9. Is above 10% rule.

Programmatic Criteria: yes (these are for trout pond use)

Milestone Criteria: no-The biological objectives are actually tasks.

General comments: This is a substitution project whose intent is to raise fish for harvest. concerned about building more dams.

Comment:

This pond fishery project is interesting and should be a relatively simple one to manage. The responses (and the original proposal) point to some serious problems in management that may be overcome by relatively simple, practical measures, such as watershed BMPs and the fencing that the proposal mentions. If the BMPs are being followed to remedy past watershed abuses (but exactly what sorts of abuses and BMPs are not described in the proposal), they should probably be given several years to take full effect before complicated in-pond management schemes are tried.

The proposal indicated that a good, practical watershed-analysis was probably done. However, the proposal and responses did not describe the analysis or how the proposal's justification, objectives, and methods stem from it.

Additional consultation with specialists, including possibly an engineer and hydrologist, as well as biologists, who have had success in fish-pond-ecosystem-management might help identify remedies to some of the persistent problems identified in the proposal. Improvements in managing existing ponds might be recommended, and mistakes in siting and building future ponds might be avoided. Future proposals should provide maps that show existing ponds, reservoirs, streams, etc. and proposed sites.

More specifically, the sponsor states a laudable desire to "reduce the need and costs associated with the continual stocking of 'catchables.'" However, it may well be that the proposed approach of studying in-pond conditions and trying different predator-prey combinations is not the right tack to take until the BMPs are put into effect and the watershed has had time to heal. The sponsor also wants an "ecosystem" approach, but may be viewing this too narrowly (yet perhaps too complexly) as "maintaining the equilibrium between predators and prey, and maximizing biotic interactions." The evident pond problems point to a need to focus more on the larger ecosystem of each pond—its watershed.

The sponsor points to "high temperatures, low oxygen levels, elevated nutrient levels and associated algal blooms during summer and oxygen depletions during winter." These are classic symptoms of watershed abuse (and perhaps secondarily a water supply and/or siting and/or pond-basin-shape problem). The watershed (drainage basin) sources of nutrients, which usually result from land-management problems; the water supply; and the shape of the pond basin and dam/outlet structure usually govern fish-production success in ponds, not finding some special mix of species. Even if a pond is thermally more suitable for warmwater fishes than for trout, the warmwater species will also do poorly if certain (often correctable) physical attributes of the pond ecosystem are wrong.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: On January 29, 1998, Council staff met with Nez Perce Tribal and Bonneville staff to discuss the status of the Nez Perce Trout Ponds (9501300) with regard to the 3-step review. It is our understanding that in Fiscal Year 1998, the project calls for an "emergency repair" of two existing rainbow trout ponds, with site inventory, design and construction of up to 12 additional fish ponds for rainbow trout, as well as continued operations and maintenance of facilities.

This project calls for the "emergency repair of two existing trout ponds and site inventory, design and construction of up to 12 additional fish ponds," as well as continued operations and maintenance of facilities. As we understand it, the simplicity of this project makes it unnecessary to prepare preliminary designs. For that reason, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance and final design will be accomplished on approximately the same schedule. Therefore, the requirements of step 1, 2, and 3 reviews will be combined into a single step 3 review for the Nez Perce Trout Ponds and will include both a scientific and fiscal review. All applicable master-planning requirements will be addressed as part of the required NEPA compliance. Final design and cost estimates will also be provided to the Council at the same time as the NEPA documents are submitted.

ISRP Review: Do not fund. The original proposal and response do not convince the reviewers that this is a scientifically sound proposal. The basic idea is supportable both in the Fish and Wildlife Program (the objective to use "substitute fisheries") and scientifically, but the proposal is not adequate as it stands. A simpler, lower-cost, more practical project could be developed.

Sponsor Policy Response: The NPT specified that the following criteria applied to their project. Criteria "a" since the ISRP's comments are critical of the strategies and objectives and evaluation of the scientific soundness of the project. Criteria "b" due to the program measures and language in Section 10.8D.1 of the Council Program.

Council Recommendation: The Fiscal Year 2000 proposal has a new title "Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program" and appears to have a new focus on "resident species" (i.e. trout, bass and sturgeon). This project was originally in a combined step review process. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2000 proposal addresses "trout, bass and sturgeon" that are not covered under the program measures and language in Section 10.8D.1 of the Council Program.

On March 26, 1999 Council and BPA staffs met with NPT staff to discuss the status of the project. The two existing ponds (i.e. Mud Springs and Talmaks) have had the required emergency repairs completed. To date, site inventory has included the identification of 15 new sites, of which only two sites seem suitable at this time for development. The two new sites that will be explored further include the Deer Creek (proposed at 115 surface acres) and Tunnel Pond sites. At this time the NPT will emphasis the Deer Creek site, but depending on the outcome of budgetary, land ownership and NEPA issues, the NPT may want to explore other opportunities for the implementation of this program. As discussed at the meeting, the Council is still anticipating the submittal of Three-Step Review Process documents, as outlined in the memo sent to the NPT and Bonneville on February 20, 1998. Additionally, at the meeting tribal staff mentioned the interest to approach this program under a multi-species approach. To date the site development at Tunnel Ponds is nearing completion.

A letter was sent to James Muaney (NPT) on April 16, 1999 stating that upon "reviewing the program language and discussing with Council staff, Council reaction is that the program measure is specific to trout and does not support expansion or revision to the production of other species.

This project has gone beyond the original intent as outlined in the program measure. Therefore the Council accepts the ISRP's recommendation not to fund this project. Transition activities should solely focus on the operation and maintenance of the three existing ponds. The existing Fiscal Year 1999 contract expires on May 31, 2000, and currently there is approximately $474,081 remaining. Through no-cost extensions, these monies seem to be adequate for the above maintenance activities. Therefore the Fiscal Year 2000 request within the CBFWA budget could be reallocated.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website