FY 2000 proposal 199800702

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 Section 10 permitting process, adult returns, conventional and captive broodstock production results, and funding constraints.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a comprehensive proposal that incorporates a strong monitoring and evaluation component. If a supplementation program is to exist, then certainly data need to be taken on its effects and effectiveness; the data to be gathered by this project are a part of those needed data. In 1999, the first 12,000 conventional brood smolt are anticipated to be released in the study area. In 2000, the first F1 captive brood fish will be released. This proposal is to provide life-history, genetics, population, and environmental data for both wild and hatchery fish. The project also has collected baseline (pre-supplementation) data, apparently for 2 years. The fish stocks to be conserved by captive and conventional brood are in jeopardy, and attention has been given to not harvesting all wild fish for hatchery use (e.g., the discussion of a sliding scale method, which should be more thoroughly explained and discussed).

Even though many of the sections of the proposal are very well done, some of it is less than adequate. Essential information on the analytical methods is lacking. The objectives have a hypothetical underpinning, but the proposal lacks detail about how hypotheses will be tested, levels of confidence, etc. The objectives (e.g., operate fish trap, coordinate/develop GRESP, etc) are not biological goals, they simply state tasks that might address biological goals. The collection of habitat data is limited to temperature and discharge information at trap sites. Although smolt-to-adult survival has continued to decline, there is no apparent effort to investigate or link habitat characteristics to adult returns. The proposal does not demonstrate strong skills in quantitative analysis in the person responsible for data analysis.

The proposers appear to embrace improved hatchery technologies, but do not question the role of hatcheries in recovery efforts. [See programmatic comments on artificial production and captive broodstock.] All of the GRESP and other captive broodstock and conservation-related hatchery proposals note that there are risks in captive broodstock technology/intervention, but they seem to understate the risks. In fact, fish may be more likely to go extinct (from disease or catastrophe) in captivity than in the wild, and hatchery fish are expected to be at least somewhat domesticated, decreasing their fitness in the wild. Hatcheries are taking many actions to offset these risks, but they cannot be entirely removed. Additionally, the financial costs of captive hatchery technology are large and it is unlikely that this technology could be implemented for all of the many local stocks that are or are likely to be in danger of extinction. These programs should not be expanded without clear appreciation of their risk, of the temporary nature of their value. A general problem of the GRESP is that (as most proposals acknowledge) smolt to adult survival must be increased greatly for GRESP to be effective in restoring fish. Thus, these proposals tend to treat symptoms, not the root problem.

Reviewers provided several more specific Comments:

Objective 3 - Why would migration not be impeded by a weir (so, what will be monitored?). The same applied to steelhead and bull trout, unless they are small enough to pass through the pickets, but Objective 4 anticipates capturing both species.

Objective 4 - They plan to monitor genetic and life history diversity prior to supplementation, and in the Abstract they say that the first artificially produced chinook will be released in 1999. But in the methods they say that they will determine hatchery to wild fish ratios. Doesn't this imply that there already has been supplementation? They say they will collect and analyze baseline information, but in the methods section, all they say is what information they will collect - nothing is said about how the data will be analyzed. Thus, it is hard to know on what basis they will reject or support their hypotheses.

Objective 6 - similar problem. How are they actually going to determine smolt survival and influence of size on survival? There is no information beyond the statement that it will be done. Unfortunately, this is not very helpful.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Objectives do not meet definition.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website