FY 2001 Intermountain 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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Change in the scope-of-work to include hatchery/wild harvest evaluation, native salmonid presence/absence survey and evaluation for hatchery utilization potential and initiation of ecological interaction investigations in selected lacustrine habitats to access hatchery influence upon lacustrine ecosystems and to develop carrying capacity estimates to guide artificial fish stocking of selected habitats.

Reason for change in scope

All the aforementioned items were critical elements identified in the ISRP review of this project. While the project satisfactorily addressed the utilization of non-native species/stocks, the ISRP identified hatchery/wild interatctions, ecological interations (including carrying capacity issues), potential use of native stock in the hatchery program and return to creel of hatchery vs naturally producing stocks as important elements to be addressed by this project. The very same elements were also central to hatchery reform identified in the Council's APR Report, therefore they have become important issues for this project to address.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The Colville Tribal Hatchery successfully produces resident salmonids to mitigate for anadromous fish losses from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams by stocking reservation lakes and streams. The technical and scientific background for the mitigation is clearly defined. The scientific rationale for stocking coastal rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and some Lahontan cutthroat trout is clearly defined as largely a put-grow-and-take fishery for tribal members and some non-members. It is active management for a consumptive fishery using non-natives where they fit the habitat. The project has responded well to previous ISRP reviews and has oriented less to production and more to native stocks, evaluation of ecosystems before planting, and compliance with the Council's artificial production guidelines. It reflects both conscientious hatchery production and a change in scope to hatchery/wild comparisons and native salmonids consistent with past ISRP reviews. The presentation of data was appreciated. There is an excellent reference list (despite some editorial glitches) and informative resumes. However, limnological data suggest poor summer conditions for salmonids in some lakes, which may limit successful stocking. We anticipate further adaptation of the program to match species stocked to the habitats of the lakes as these results are integrated.

This is largely a stand-alone project, but reflects interactions. It seems well developed and coordinated with the subbasin scheme. The proposal provided a good project history and relevant data. There are clearly defined and measurable objectives that relate directly to the fisheries of the stocked waters. Methods are appropriate and well described. The project includes good monitoring and consistent evaluation. However, the HGMP looks incomplete. Monitoring ensures that the lakes are not overstocked, that the hatchery produces what people want to catch, and that the lakes and streams are appropriate for the fish species (but see above). Facilities seem adequate for the work. Information seems adequately transferred. Within the objective of perpetually providing consumptive fisheries that match the people's desires and the available aquatic systems, there is a persistent benefit to fisheries. There seem to be no adverse effects on other species. The project meets all consistency criteria.

The proposal enlarges upon the objective to specify a catch per unit of effort to be achieved in the fishery created by the fish that are planted. Further thought needs to be given to specification of this objective. It needs to be recognized that the catch per effort experienced in any fishery is a function of both the number of fish in the population and the total number of fishermen participating in the fishery (in this context or total effort in a general context). There is no suggestion in the proposal or elsewhere that the number of fishermen might be restricted in some way. It appears to be assumed that it will remain constant. However, it is well established that fishermen will regulate their effort to the expected catch per effort. Therefore, the fishery resulting from these planted fish will probably reach an equilibrium with a catch per effort value that satisfies the fishermen rather than one that satisfies the hatchery manager or planner. The end result might be that the planner is continually under pressure to provide more fish as the fishing effort mounts. The text should at least discuss this issue.

Economics warrants further evaluation by others beyond the ISRP (IEAB?). The budget doubled over forecast due to prior ISRP review such that the M&E budget is now greater that the O&M budget. By our calculations, $395,000/yr is spent for 49,000 fish stocked, = $8/lb. One might question whether this is good value and whether examination of some of the details of the project could make the return more beneficial economically.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The Colville Tribal Hatchery successfully produces resident salmonids to mitigate for anadromous fish losses from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams by stocking reservation lakes and streams. The technical and scientific background for the mitigation is clearly defined. The scientific rationale for stocking coastal rainbow trout, eastern brook trout, and some Lahontan cutthroat trout is clearly defined as largely a put-grow-and-take fishery for tribal members and some non-members. It is active management for a consumptive fishery using non-natives where they fit the habitat. The project has responded well to previous ISRP reviews and has oriented less to production and more to native stocks, evaluation of ecosystems before planting, and compliance with the Council's artificial production guidelines. It reflects both conscientious hatchery production and a change in scope to hatchery/wild comparisons and native salmonids consistent with past ISRP reviews. The presentation of data was appreciated. There is an excellent reference list (despite some editorial glitches) and informative resumes. However, limnological data suggest poor summer conditions for salmonids in some lakes, which may limit successful stocking. We anticipate further adaptation of the program to match species stocked to the habitats of the lakes as these results are integrated.

This is largely a stand-alone project, but reflects interactions. It seems well developed and coordinated with the subbasin scheme. The proposal provided a good project history and relevant data. There are clearly defined and measurable objectives that relate directly to the fisheries of the stocked waters. Methods are appropriate and well described. The project includes good monitoring and consistent evaluation. However, the HGMP looks incomplete. Monitoring ensures that the lakes are not overstocked, that the hatchery produces what people want to catch, and that the lakes and streams are appropriate for the fish species (but see above). Facilities seem adequate for the work. Information seems adequately transferred. Within the objective of perpetually providing consumptive fisheries that match the people's desires and the available aquatic systems, there is a persistent benefit to fisheries. There seem to be no adverse effects on other species. The project meets all consistency criteria.

The proposal enlarges upon the objective to specify a catch per unit of effort to be achieved in the fishery created by the fish that are planted. Further thought needs to be given to specification of this objective. It needs to be recognized that the catch per effort experienced in any fishery is a function of both the number of fish in the population and the total number of fishermen participating in the fishery (in this context or total effort in a general context). There is no suggestion in the proposal or elsewhere that the number of fishermen might be restricted in some way. It appears to be assumed that it will remain constant. However, it is well established that fishermen will regulate their effort to the expected catch per effort. Therefore, the fishery resulting from these planted fish will probably reach an equilibrium with a catch per effort value that satisfies the fishermen rather than one that satisfies the hatchery manager or planner. The end result might be that the planner is continually under pressure to provide more fish as the fishing effort mounts. The text should at least discuss this issue.

Economics warrants further evaluation by others beyond the ISRP (IEAB (Independent Economic Advisory Board)?). The budget doubled over forecast due to prior ISRP review such that the M&E budget is now greater that the O&M budget. By our calculations, $395,000/yr is spent for 49,000 fish stocked, = $8/lb. One might question whether this is good value and whether examination of some of the details of the project could make the return more beneficial economically.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website