FY 2000 proposal 20075

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 anticipated

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The proposal lacks conviction that it is either based on sound scientific principles or offers clearly identified objectives. It states that mitigation hatcheries in the Columbia Basin have contributed to the loss of natural production [of salmon] through diminished genetic diversity and poor conditioning and it contends that hatchery smolt quality is poor because ancestral source populations are maladapted with respect to local conditions at the hatchery site, in particular, that timing of (emigration?) is 'inappropriate'. It further contends that successful supplementation requires "1 genetics of the stock, 2 the environmental requirements of the stock, and 3 incubation and rearing experiences that are consistent.." Reviewers take this to mean that early-migrating, spawning, smolting populations have been inappropriately stocked into hatcheries where late-migrating, spawning, and smolting populations would be more adaptive and vice versa. While the background section leads reviewers to believe that the project relates to appropriate broodstock selection for supplementation, it is not. It is about building artificial streams to emulate natural parr environments.

In any event, CBFWA itself observes that this proposal appears to have some redundancy with existing work by NATURES in the Yakima sub-basin.

The project proposes to "provide ...info..to assist up-grading/replacing traditional hatchery practices...model for rearing channel systems ..to replace lost habitat." This may be a very appealing rationale but the claim is unsupported. The proposal would benefit from a fuller discussion of failed projects at McNary & Priest Rapids-- in the Background section. While the rationale for incorporating "engineered" streams into supplementation hatchery systems has application to FWP, this proposal lacks sufficient specifics to be convincing.

The experimental design for monitoring and assessment is relatively undefined. The stated objectives are to 1. produce wild-quality fingerlings, smolts from the "new concept", and 2. monitor behavior and condition, comparing salmon to standard hatchery fish. The proposal does not show how these objectives can or will be measured and neglects to link them to a schedule of tasks. The time frame does not appear to be sufficient to allow for complete assessment and evaluation of results (fish condition, growth, and survival). Most of the methods are engineering methods to build the artificial stream and seem only indirectly related to the objectives. The features to be incorporated are vaguely defined and there is no evidence of a basis in literature or preliminary research for the design criteria. There are no smolt-producing methods given. What will be introduced into the artificial stream? Spawners? Eggs? Fry? Parr? Smolts? How big are these artificial streams? How many fish would be produced from them? Would they be artificially fed at all? How is this scheme different from NATURES? It seems similar in concept, and because NATURES has been going on for some time, this proponent needs to specify the differences. Fishery biological methods are given short shrift and are difficult to evaluate.

While the proponents are clearly eminent in their respective fields, they are not known as experts among habitat specialists. Appropriate collaborators do not assist them. Neither is known to have published any refereed work on salmon habitat requirements or salmon habitat engineering.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Success should be measured in terms of adults, not smolts. Question the logic of putting the artificial stream in a hatchery that already has water quality problems. Suggest looking at the Entiat channel instead.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - The objectives are not clearly defined.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -

Comment:

Comment: