In 1995, the Council adopted the recommendations of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe to improve the reservation fishery. One of these recommendations included a proposal to design, construct, operate and maintain a trout production facility. The principles, priorities, and objectives for this mitigation are described in the 1995 Fish and Wildlife Program, Section: 10.8B; 10.8B.1; and 10.8B.20.
A master plan and supporting documents, as the first step in the Major Project Review process[1] for this project, was prepared by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the Bonneville Power Administration and submitted to the Council on January 13. The tribal master plan proposes using a restoration hatchery as an alternative for producing sufficient numbers of locally adapted fish to meet harvest and research needs to restore native trout stocks in tributaries located on the reservation. This program would also provide fish for tribal member harvest in selected areas until the native populations are rebuilt to harvestable levels.
On March 17, the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) provided its review of the master plan for the proposed trout production facility. The ISRP found that the master plan did not provide adequate basis for the continuation of the project. Generally the ISRP was concerned about the proposed purpose of the facility and the lack of capacity of the environment for more cutthroat trout.
Thank you for your interest in the Council's review of this project.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Crow
Executive Director
Coeur d'Alene Tribe Trout Production Facility Master Plan — Step 1
Review Process
Week[2] | Description |
| 1 (1/13/03, Monday) | Proponents/Bonneville submits Master Plan to Council |
| 1 - 3 | Council staff review |
| 3 (1/27, Monday) | Council/BPA initiates Peer Review |
| 3 - 8 | Council prepares issue paper |
| 8 (3/3, Monday) | Additional materials provided to Peer Review, if necessary |
| 8 (3/5, Wednesday) | Council staff submits issue paper to Fish and Wildlife Committee (Packet Day) |
| 9 (3/11, Tuesday) | Council Fish and Wildlife Committee reviews the issue paper (master plan), and makes recommendations to Council |
| 10 (3/17, Monday) | Peer Review findings submitted to Council |
| 13 (4/9, Wednesday) | Council considers releasing issue paper (master plan) |
| 17 (5/6-7) | Council takes public comments on master plan at Council Meeting |
| 22 (6/10-12) | Council takes public comments on master plan at Council Meeting |
| 22 (June 13, 2003) | Due date for all written comments on master plan |
| 13 - 26 | Council staff prepares a summary of comments and potential alternatives for decision |
| 26 (7/9, Wednesday) | Council staff provides summary of comments and potential alternatives to Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider recommendation (packet) |
| 27 (7/15, Tuesday) | Fish and Wildlife Committee considers potential alternatives for recommendation |
| 30 (8/6, Wednesday) | Council staff provides Decision Memo with Fish and Wildlife Committee recommendation to Council (packet) |
| 31 (8/12-13) | Council considers approval of master plan |
[1] The Council (September 1997) adopted a policy that built upon the master plan element of the 1995 Program to ensure that 1) new artificial production projects would be considered by the Council while the Artificial Production Review was under way, 2) ensure that these projects would be considered in the context of their roles and potential impacts within specific subbasins and 3) receive the detailed scrutiny recommended by the ISRP prior to approval. This policy was known as the "three-step review." It called for "new production initiatives" to follow a basic development process that has three main steps or phases: (Step 1) conceptual planning, represented under the 1995 Program primarily by master plan development and approval; (Step 2) preliminary design and cost estimation, and environmental (i.e. National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act) review; and (Step 3) final design review prior to construction. In adopting the Three-Step Review Process, the Council agreed with the ISRP's recommendation to make use of independent peer review for projects as they move through each stage of the process. On October 18, 2001 the Council adopted an updated review process called the Major Project Review process that incorporates the three-step review process (Council document 2001-29).
[2] Depending on the deliverables and the needed alignment to Fish and Wildlife Committee and Council meetings, this schedule is based on the minimum amount of time required.
