FY 2000 proposal 20148

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: ESA permitting

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a companion proposal to 20147, for evaluation of Bull Trout populations in the North Fork Clearwater. This proposal, by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, focuses primarily on Dworshak Reservoir; the companion proposal is for work in the tributaries to Dworshak. Like the companion submittal by the Nez Perce Tribe, this proposal does not reflect an adequate analysis of existing data. Reviewers are left to conclude that the proposal is technically inadequate.

The Methods section is cursory, and does not provide information necessary to determine if the objectives can be met. For example, the proposal states that radio transmitters would be implanted in "50 Bull Trout annually for 5 years" but neglects to describe the statistical implications of this sample size. What issues exist with respect to non-randomness of the sample selection, due to inevitable complications in recruiting the subjects? Part of the proposal is to evaluate the impact of operations at Dworshak on bull trout, but the methods are to monitor conditions (temperature) in the reservoir and attempt to explain the distribution of radio-tagged fish when temperature conditions change. These and other potential effects cannot be evaluated unless operations at Dworshak can be manipulated for the express purpose of answering these questions. Otherwise, any number of other alternative explanations will exist for observations made under uncontrolled operations.

From the standpoint of coordination (with the companion project), more detail needs to must be provided on how the joint tasks under Objective 3 will be conducted. Finally, like the companion proposal, no clear statement of project duration is given, nor are milestones presented for individual years; it appears that the proposers intend that the project would go on forever. Absent information an assessment of summarizing past data, and adequate description of methods, this is not a scientifically defensible proposal

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no-There is no evidence that the population is in poor shape. It doesn't meet Criteria 6-8. Projects 20148, 20147, 20156, 9501600, are all doing native fish surveys in the same basin for $650,000. Unnecessary detail on a very small area (over researching the area)

Programmatic Criteria: no-It does not address urgent threat to population.

Milestone Criteria: no- It is a survey based proposal.

General Comments:

Comment: