FY 2002 Mountain Snake 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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Project continues in Operation and Maintenance mode with an Monitoring and Evaluation component. No Planning and Design or Construction and Implementation budgets proposed as project will gain a new pond fishery in near future through land acquisition for other purposes by NPT. Previous outyear forecasts included development of new pond sites.

Reason for change in scope

NPT Resident Fish Substitution Project continues in O& M mode this year, but will include P&D and C&I components in future years as project accomplishes F&W Program objective of development of six to twelve ponds.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proposal is poorly prepared and deficient in content. The "abstract" contains material not elaborated in the body of the proposal. No primary source on limnology is referenced, although knowledge of that subject is sorely needed to conduct the project.

In Sect. 4, the P&D budget, 4 ongoing tasks (1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a) are shown with zero cost (and no matching funds shown elsewhere). In Sect. 5, the Construction/Implementation budget, Task 1a also has zero cost. Zero cost for scheduled activities is incongruous and must be corrected or somehow explained. In Sect. 7, M&E budget, Tasks 1a and 1b coincide with Section 4's Tasks 1a and 1c, respectively. If part of each is actually intended for the P&D phase, then the budget should be divided accordingly.

Sect. 9, item f, Proposal objectives, tasks and methods, is completely inadequate. It merely states an overall objective. The scheme of objectives and tasks shown in the budget sections is not set forth in this item, and no method is shown whatsoever. What are the rationale, sampling design, and technique for each of the budgeted tasks that involve monitoring and/or evaluation of conditions or results? Specifically,

• In Task 1a (identical in Sect. 4 and 7),"Monitor temperature, oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, nitrogen loading, alkalinity, and depth to evaluate water quality and habitat at new fisheries," does this mean in new ponds or in the water supplies intended for new ponds or both? What is the rationale for measuring each of these variables (of what use will the data from each likely be—and why not measures of phosphorus loading, as well)? What is the sampling design for each? What technique(s) will be used to measure each? What were the results from previous years?
• In identical Tasks 1b of Sect. 7 and 1c of Sect. 4,"Monitor and evaluate effects of watershed use on water quality and habitat quality. . .etc.," what will be measured, what is the sampling design, and what are the measurement techniques? What were the results from previous years?
• In Task 1c of Sect. 7,"Monitor fish growth and condition. . .," what is the sampling design, and what are the measurement and evaluation techniques? What were the results from previous years?
• In Task 2a of Sect. 7,"Monitor harvest," what is the sampling design, and what are the measurement and estimation techniques? (See later discussion of this task's inordinately high budget.)
• In Task 1a of Sect. 6 (O&M), involving maintenance of "habitat quality to maximize potential carrying capacity and fish harvest," what will be the methods of maintenance, how would habitat quality be affected, and how would this maximize carrying capacity?

At Tunnel Pond, the best of the three sites, 2,500 to 3,000 lb of hatchery trout are stocked annually—last year at a size of 0.75 to 1 lb. each (which converts to about 13 or 14 inches). Here, return to the creel has been 84%, stated also as about 2,000 lb. Thus, fewer pounds of fish are harvested than are stocked. This means that conditions in the pond are such that fish growth does not make up for natural (non-fishing) mortality. The pond is either a poor place for trout to grow or for them to survive, or it is poor place for both essential processes. Similar amounts are stocked in each of the other two ponds, and return to anglers is even worse there than in Tunnel Pond. If a pond is sited at a proper water supply, is properly designed and built, and is properly managed, more pounds of trout will be harvested than are stocked—far more.

The difference between harvest rate in Tunnel Pond and the others is consistent with findings elsewhere that better limnological conditions for fish occur where ponds are created not by damming streams but by using a groundwater supply. Damming a stream subjects the resultant pond to the stream's supply of sediment and dissolved nutrients. Excessive algal and other plant growth and consequent dissolved oxygen insufficiency tends to occur in such ponds, mainly because the stream brings phosphorus from uphill land uses that cannot be adequately controlled. In contrast, groundwater- or spring-fed ponds have a water supply from which phosphorus has been filtered, and if human-generated activities are properly controlled on the smaller uphill areas involved, such ponds will maintain good conditions for trout. Such sites should be selected for the program's future ponds. One reviewer suspects the region's geology makes proper sites rare or unavailable. If so, and if ponds can be created here only by damming streams, then curtailment of the program's expansion should be carefully considered. Stream-dammed ponds will involve major ongoing, costly problems and perpetuation of the project's inefficiency.

Although costs are not central to this scientific review, reviewers felt compelled to raise the issue of costs and benefits on this project. The project operates extremely inefficiently, seen in the light of dollars expended vs. harvest results. The harvest is costing around $30 or more per pound of fish, assuming the FY 2000 expenditure was a bit less than the requested FY 2002 budget. If FY 2002 harvest equals that of FY 2000 (2,774 kg) and the budget remains as proposed, the result will be close to $40/lb. Obviously, costs toward building new ponds contribute to the apparent inefficiency, but those planning and design costs have persisted for years, these and construction costs would continue under the present plan, and they could not be amortized to bring total cost per pound down to a reasonable level for many, many more years, if ever.

The impending FY 2002 inefficiency could be cut substantially by eliminating Task 2a, harvest monitoring. This task need be done only at several-year intervals (consult a biometrician on design frequency). To date, it has amply shown that the ponds perform poorly, and it can be discontinued for the next several years. In any event, the reviewers question the annual budget for harvest monitoring, especially as no design for sampling and estimation is shown. At $97,342, catch estimation is scheduled to cost over 7 times as much as the $13,500 for stocking the fish. If the 3 ponds yield the same 6,103-lb harvest as in FY 2000, the scheduled cost of monitoring this would be $15.94/lb.

The sponsor could likewise discontinue Task 1c (budget page 7), monitoring of fish growth and condition, until new ponds at built. Such monitoring also need not be done every year. The task's $21,902 would add $3.59/lb to the cost of harvested fish (at FY 2000 harvest rate). This task's budget, if it is justified at all, might well be reduced. The monitoring and analysis designs should be shown.

The proposal should clearly summarize in tables and graphs the results of all of the project's past monitoring.

Comment:

Comment:

This project's purpose is to provide stocked trout for angling in ponds as partial substitution for destroyed salmon fisheries. The project's record of performance is poor. Its efforts have been extremely inefficient. The program buys hatchery trout of table-food size and stocks them in three ponds. Two of the ponds are poor fish habitat and are yielding very poor results—far less pounds of trout harvested than pounds stocked. The third provides somewhat better conditions, but still less harvested than stocked. The long-term plan is to build 6 to 12 more ponds, but whether truly suitable sites exist is questionable.

The sponsor submitted a revised proposal but did not deal with ISRP comments on a point-by-point basis. Some specifics on the sponsor's response and remaining deficiencies in the revised-but-still-inadequate proposal include: The proposal should clearly summarize in tables and graphs the results of all of the project's past monitoring. The revised proposal showed improvement in monitoring components. However, the ISRP recommendation was and remains that monitoring fish harvest should be omitted for at least the next two years because such monitoring has already amply shown what the results are. Rather than follow the recommendation, the sponsor outlined a reduced level of harvest monitoring without justifying it. The sponsor should respond to the ISRP comments point by point.

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are confusing, perhaps mainly because each of these sections contains tasks (zero-budgeted) that are appropriate only for other sections, thus obscuring meaning with extraneous material. In other words, only objectives and tasks truly involved in a section should be listed there. Section 8 shows personnel at 2.1 FTEs, but Section 10 shows 3"full time" personnel.

Although costs are not central to this scientific review, reviewers felt compelled to raise the issue of costs and benefits on this project. The harvest is costing around $30 or more per pound of fish harvested, assuming the FY 2000 expenditure was a bit less than the requested FY 2002 budget. Costs toward building new ponds contribute to the apparent inefficiency, but those planning and design costs have persisted for years, these and construction costs would continue under the present plan, and they could not be amortized to bring total cost per pound down to a reasonable level for many, many more years, if ever. The budget of the revised proposal shows a decrease for FY 2002 and then a jump over the original for the out-years. This should be justified.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

Comment:

The ISRP provided a "fundable in part" recommendation to maintain the fish stocking and identify sites that could produce better results than the present ponds. The ISRP had specific comments regarding this project and requested that the project be funded only after submission of a response that fully addresses ISRP preliminary-review (2001-9) and final review (2001-12A). The Council notes that the ISRP's suggestion that additional site investigation continue is not consistent with the Council's most recent decision regarding this project. During the Council's review of the Fiscal Year 2000 proposal it was determined that the project had changed scope and intent based on the availability of suitable sites. Therefore, in its last review, the Fiscal Year 2000 decision cycle, the Council concurred with the ISRP's recommendation that this project not be funded for expansion or investigations for expansion, and that it be focused on the O&M of the three existing ponds.

Based on the specific nature of the past Council decisions, the funding for this project is based on the alignment to the existing contracted amount (applied 3.4% rule) to maintain the O&M phase of this project. The sponsor has not provided any compelling new information as to why the Council should revisit the decisions it made when it thoroughly reviewed this project for its Fiscal Year 2000 decision. This funding recommendation is conditioned on the sponsor addressing the ISRP comments and questions in ISRP documents 2001-9 and 2001-12A. Re-initiating the continued search for available sites is not an appropriate task for funding under this recommendation.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website