FY 2000 proposal 20095

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: Having read of the explosive increase in American shad in the Columbia River, the committee was prepared to be persuaded by this proposal. This is clearly a priority research area and the introductory section was one of the very best in our proposals. A convincing case was made for the importance of working on American shad. However, the great start to this proposal failed to be carried through to the equally important sections describing research objectives and methods. Generally, methods were weakly developed. Staff involvement was unclear.

Concerning the methods, reviewers noted that:

The proposal would examine past collections taken in the John Day Reservoir and not the lower reservoirs or the lower river where abundance of shad are many times more abundant; the proposal would analyze hydroacoustic and trawl data to identify distribution patterns of shad and juvenile chinook, but the interpretation of this data would be uncertain, particularly for purposes of examining interactions between species; and the examination of stomachs of shad and chinook, to examine competition, is also of questionable value. For example, any observed overlap (or lack thereof) in diets of chinook and shad might be explained in many different but equally plausible ways. Little or no overlap in diet might be the result of either a total lack of competition for similar prey or from very intense competition for prey, where one species strongly out competes the other for that prey. The ecological implications of these two scenarios are very different, but there is no way to resolve which of many possible alternative explanations is correct.

The proposed budget appears to be much to large for the deliverables expected. It is also not clear what the large sub-contracts are required to deliver.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Inc -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Inc -

Comment:

Issue 1: (avian predation) The Council requested a long-term management plan for Caspian tern predator control activities funded by Bonneville. A report on the management plan to the Council was provided on September 21.

Issue 2: (Northern Pikeminnow) Regarding Pikeminnow, are the projects proposed consistent with that prior guidance to utilize those most cost-effective means of reducing these predators and not an expenditure on additional research oriented activities?

Past Council Treatment: (avian predation) On July 22, 1999 the Council sent a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service, CBFWA, and the Corps requesting that they develop a management plan for Caspian tern predator control. That management plan was provided on September 21st, and a presentation was made to the Council.

Northern Pikeminnow: In its Fiscal Year 1998 recommendations, the Council responded to an ISRP report criticizing the level of expenditures devoted to the Northern Pikeminnow control program by recommending funding for those portions of the proposed projects that utilized what experience had demonstrated as being the most cost-effective methods for reducing these predators, and recommending that funding be discontinued for those methods that had not been as demonstrably effective. In addition, the Council noted that the project had been so successfully monitored and evaluated that the questions related to predator behavior, and the benefit obtained by reducing their numbers had been answered, and that additional efforts to evaluate such issues were unnecessary.

Council Recommendation: (avian predation) The Council evaluated the avian predation project after considering the report and presentation by USFWS, NMFS and the Corps on the long-term management plan on September 21st. Following the ISRP presentation and discussion on this project, the Council became extremely concerned by what appeared to be a high level of disagreement and/or lack of focus on a plan to dramatically reduce the predation rates by Caspian terns. The Council sent a letter to NMFS asking that it assert a leadership role in quickly developing a plan to reduce predation rates on juvenile salmonids to less than five percent in the year 2000 out-migration.

On November 2nd, representatives of the Working Group made a second presentation to the Council and outlined an Fiscal Year 2000 work plan that was supported by a majority of the group, and was aimed at reducing predation on juvenile salmonids by 25 to 45 percent in the year 2000. On November 3rd the Council voted to recommend to Bonneville that the activities planned by the Caspian Tern Working Group in its Fiscal Year 2000 Tern Management Plan be funded. While approving the project for Fiscal Year 2000, the Council continues to seek development and implementation of a workplan that reduces predation below five percent beyond year 2000. The Council is also concerned that the NMFS and USFWS have not made a significant financial contribution to this effort, and will evaluate the contributions from these entities in future proposals seeking Bonneville funds for this type of work.

Council Recommendation: (Northern Pikeminnow) The Council reviewed comments submitted by the sponsor in response to the ISRP report (Appendix B, p. 144, CBFWA August 20, 1999), stating that the proposal focuses on what has been shown as the most cost-effective reduction strategies. The Council finds that these sponsor comments about funding allocations within the project satisfy past Council concerns for purposes of the Fiscal Year 2000 proposal.

Therefore, the Council recommends that Northern pikeminnow project # 9007700 be funded at the level proposed by CBFWA. Funding is recommended upon the following conditions:

1. The Council recommends that carryover funds from Fiscal Year 1999 be made available for this ongoing project, and;
2. Funding of this program in future years will be dependent on an analysis and report to the Council that addresses the following
• the declining performance and justification of the entire program, specifically the dam angling and site-specific fisheries;
• fiscal review of administrative and personnel costs for all components;
• feasibility and cost/benefit analysis of alternative predator control strategies

Comment: