FY 2000 proposal 20062

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: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments Parsley et al. propose to assemble a PVA model from existing and emerging data on white sturgeon throughout the Basin, and to employ the model to design adaptive policies and actions to increase population densities. This addresses a critical and likely erroneous, extrapolation of population characteristics from the unimpounded Columbia downstream of Bonneville to set biological objectives for recovery of more impounded and isolated populations. An existing PVA model hey developed for the middle Snake will be expanded to meet the needs of this broader, Basin-wide approach. The need to develop and test a PVA model for Columbia River Basin white sturgeon populations is succinctly and logically developed. They are confining their management strategies to supplementation, broodstock management and harvest policies, although there is a specific step to integrate population status and genetic diversity information with habitat availability. However, their analysis is actually intended to assess risks associated with supplementation. The project focuses on probably the second most important fish, other than the various salmonid species, in the estuary. The project directly addresses FWP Measure 10.4 and sub-measures dealing with actions to restore white sturgeon populations and mitigate for system development and operation impacts.

Interaction of the population and habitat aspects with assessment of genetic variation could provide some intriguing and potentially valuable information on the extent of population homogeneity and migration exchanges. Strong feedback loops among scientists and resource managers, involving responses to the outcomes of alternative management scenarios, is also an attractive element of the proposal. This may also be one of the more interconnected (both within and among FWP) projects in the package. It also may be one of the few to result in timely, peer-reviewed scientific journal publications?

This project appears to be absolutely dependent on at least one proposed FWP project (#8605000), but also five other on-going (?) projects that provide sturgeon stock/population and harvest characteristics, genetic analyses results, and reservoir habitat information. All these projects will provide strong "value added" linkages to this project. In addition to the on-going and proposed FWP projects, this project will be coordinated with independent projects from Idaho Power, and Grant County PUD through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Objectives are specific, and feed into a comprehensive product (the PVA model), and the process of expanding the existing ORNL PVA model appears feasible as long as fundamental data exists. Although not describing the detailed structure of the existing or expanded model, the methods appropriately describe steps required to parameterize, test and apply it. The tasks are well aligned with the objectives. Monitoring and evaluating appears to occur primarily through interaction with agencies to fine-tune management objectives and to evaluate model predictions, but timeframe for validation of management outcomes is beyond project duration. The sequenced schedule (1 yr for development of PVA model, 11 mo. to draft manuscript) is ambitious but proposers have capable background and track record. Integration of facilities and personnel of USGS-BRD (Parsley), the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Jager, Bevelhimer) and Rutgers (Van Winkle, Jr.) should produce strong team capabilities. All have published in peer-reviewed journals recently and on current, state-of-the-science research. Why is this separate from 8605000? Information gained from this proposal should be applied to efforts under 8605000. The two projects should be integrated. The modeling exercise is a separate task from 8605000, but the other objectives are integral to 8605000. At completion of study, results should be reviewed relative to the white sturgeon umbrella proposal. It should identify gaps to be addressed by 8605000.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- This doesn't meet the majority of the technical criteria for 2-10. I felt number 9 wasn't cost effective and the budget was excessive for the Oakridge Nat'l Lab. I am not convinced the model would meet objectives.

Programmatic Criteria: no- This doesn't meet criteria 11.

Milestone Criteria: no- There is no loss statement.

Screening Criteria: no-It doesn't meet the intent of the measures in the F & W program. Addresses adequacy of existing fishing regulations.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: