FY 2000 proposal 20026

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: If the project is funded, no schedule constraints are expected.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: Although this proposal was fairly well written, there are too many uncertainties and needed alterations to recommend it for funding. There is doubt concerning the nature of the work to be done. For example, it is stated that four populations of trout are to be genetically analyzed, then the results integrated with others, but how that is to be accomplished is not stated. While this project is linked to many others, it is unclear who will perform what functions, so linkages are murky. The uncertainty over methodology, including who is to do genetic analysis, is a clear weakness. A potential major problem is the proposal to sacrifice 50 individuals from each population for protein electrophoretic analyses and aging. Other techniques should be substituted. In fact, the authors state that one day they may employ some newer DNA based techniques. Reviewers believe that day should be now. The proponents also need to describe the sites where they will collect samples or at least the criteria they will use to select the sites. Four streams are an insufficient subset. For the above reasons, the reviewers judge that the proposal is not based on sound science principles.

The hypothesis proposed to be addressed is trivial. Why not also define status as 'abundance of cutthroat trout as a proportion of abundance the current habitat could support' (if exploitation is a possible problem). The 2 definitions of status should both be evaluated (rather than or). The reviewers are not convinced that questionnaires would provide abundant or useful information on genetic purity unless the surveys encompass those who have done the analyses.

Test 2a – How will relative abundance be determined? How will appearance, external diseases, and overall health be determined? Scales and tissues will be taken as a statistical sample for what?

Task 2b – Aren't all streams potentially accessible for sampling? Is there a potential for bias here? How do the authors intend to record qualitative and quantitative data on other fish species to establish the role of species interactions in limiting production.

Task 2c – Why do so many tissue samples need to be collected for allozyme electrophoresis? The sample size of 50 seems high.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes - See comment on 20109

Comment:

Comment: