FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 24004

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

A better-defined plan is needed that focuses on the upper lake first and lays out a sequential strategy, rather than the proposed shotgun approach throughout the watershed. The overall objectives of the proposal are worthwhile, as it is clear that lake trout and brook trout are having detrimental effects on bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout populations. Nevertheless, both proposal and presentation indicated the efforts would be spread somewhat equally among Upper Priest, Priest, and Pend Oreille. A more biologically defensible approach would be to focus in priority order on suppression and removal of exotics from the Upper Priest Lake system before moving downstream to Priest and Pend Oreille lakes.

The sponsors should consider focusing efforts on cleaning the Upper Priest Lake and its tributaries of lake and brook trout entirely, and installation of a complete passage barrier in the Thorofare area. If the barrier has downstream and upstream trapping capabilities, the barrier could be used to remove any downstream migrating lake trout, while passing migrating westslope cutthroat trout or bull trout up or down as needed. The proposal focuses on lake trout control, but only minimally on brook trout removal, which may prove the more difficult to control or eradicate. The proposed work needs to be much more detailed and aggressive on brook trout removal. This is the weakest part of the proposal. Consideration should be made after these efforts are successful to designate the upper Priest watershed as a native fish refuge. Restoration efforts would then more appropriately move downstream into Priest Lake, then into Pend Oreille.

Comment:

Comment:

The response made some good changes in the prioritization of project tasks. We agree with the logic of giving highest priority to removing lake trout from Upper Priest Lake. However, because of the lack of control of lake trout in Lower Priest Lake, the efforts in Upper Priest will likely be for naught without a complete barrier between the two lakes (in the Thorofare). The proposed approach will not likely be successful; an incomplete barrier will not achieve the goals. It would likely take a complete barrier to meet the project goals.

The key to success of this project as proposed will clearly be the placement and maintenance of a barrier to lake trout in the Thorofare. But the proposal would expend a lot of money for an undescribed system. There is a real leap of faith here, and a convincing case is not made that the mystery structure will be effective, largely because of the perceived need to build something that allows boat passage.

The brook trout component and modeling are not adequately justified; the results do not warrant the effort and should not be funded. The point is made in the response that dealing with brook trout in streams in the Upper Priest watershed should be done in a deliberate and measured fashion. True. But it might be critical to more aggressively prioritize streams and ensure those with strong cutthroat populations are given adequate protection now to avoid the need for costly remedial work in the future. Modeling as proposed would appear to be largely unneeded, with more attention being paid to practicality of brook trout removal as done in Montana. This effort is still too weak to merit funding.

Comment:

Comment:

A new proposal (24004) for measures to suppress exotic species in Priest Lake was a high priority CBFWA recommendation but received only conditional approval from the ISRP (p. 19). The ISRP's review found merit in the project concept (constructing a barrier to fish passage between Upper and Lower Priest Lake), but said that constructing an effective barrier that would still allow boat passage would be a "leap of faith." The ISRP found four of the project objectives fundable, one marginal, and two not fundable.

Council recommendation: The Council concludes that the ISRP review noted sufficiently severe questions about the proposal that the project should not be initiated at this time.

Comment: