FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 21024

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The uncertainty about the project design and the power analysis precludes us from currently recommending funds for this proposal. The basin should consider what evaluation standard should be applied to these comparative studies. For example, past studies have examined survival for a short period or migration distance downstream. However, the ultimate measure of success must be the return rate of adults. Modest increases in juvenile survival won't be a major gain in the Basin unless they lead to substantially greater increases in SARs ... (e.g., a 25% increase in a 1% SAR is still only 1.25%; not enough to resolve our problems). Before any major changes in procedures are endorsed, we need to be realistic about our expectations from these tools.

The design of the intended 'experiment' needs to be clarified, as the presentation of the experimental design during the site visit was quite different than that described in the proposal. Interactions were dropped (a mistake we think) and the power analysis was not completely explained. The proposal (but not the presentation!) described a 2X2 treatment experimental design that seems appropriate to examine the treatment effects of bottom substrate and predator avoidance. The approach is also used to examine the effects of controlled temperatures and water source (spring water) versus ambient temperatures and river water. In many cases preliminary data support survival advantages by smolts reared under one of the NATUREs environmental conditions. It will be most interesting to see if those trends continue with a larger scale study and to try to quantify any survival advantage of multiple factors and their interactions. There is a lot of interest in the region to determine if NATUREs is a viable tool. The methods do not describe where detections are to occur.

A long history of this project is described. Why has there been so little peer review of primary results? Most publications seem to be reviews of the good ideas of NATUREs, not publications of results. Why isn't this group involved with Beckman and his colleagues who have published pertinent results on growth patterns and SARs? Why aren't they part of this study's design team? Elements of NATUREs haven't been studied in designs that isolate effects and interactions. To date, NATUREs has been a potpourri of gravel bottom, christmas trees, arbitrarily chosen culture densities, diets, etc. Apparently, the only benefit has been darker coloration's protection immediately (hours) after release in clear streams where birds are present. None of the rest of it has been tested in isolation or interaction with other elements. So the design here is to test the potpourri. We still won't know which element is significant.

Despite the concerns expressed above, this research proposal addresses timely and important questions central to hatchery reform in the Columbia River Basin. The project sponsors collectively have an impressive research and publication background - and have been diligent about publishing results from many of their previous studies. The efficacy of hatchery reform and the potential for reform that exists in many older production facilities are critical questions in the basin. The sponsor's commitment to rigorous research and their willingness to seek peer-review scrutiny of this work is commendable. One of the reviewers questioned whether Carson Hatchery is the best situation to test the NATUREs theory; perhaps the new Nez Perce tribal hatchery, under construction, will be a more appropriate facility.

Comment:

FY 01 Budget Review Comments: More definitive results from NATUREs studies should be available prior to initiating a large scale production investigation. Fund only after a rigorous summary of all applied NATUREs studies has been presented to CBFWA AFC to provide a better justification for work. This project potentially meets a RPA of the 2000 Draft Biological Opinion (9.6.4.3 Actions to Implement Recommendations in the NWPPC's Artificial Production Review).

Comment:

Comment:

1. The experimental design be again submitted to the ISRP and reviewed for a funding recommendation by the Council;
2. A comprehensive summary of NATUREs research be presented to the Council, and;
3. The National Marine Fisheries Service should explain to the Council why this research need is not being addressed by the ongoing experimental design at the Cle Elum facility or the proposed design at the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery.

Comment: