FY 2000 proposal 20075
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
20075 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Engineered Anadromous Salmonid Habitat |
Proposal ID | 20075 |
Organization | University of Idaho (UI) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Ernest L. Brannon |
Mailing address | Aquaculture Research Institute, U of I Moscow, ID 83844-2260 |
Phone / email | 2088855830 / aqua@uidaho.edu |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Columbia Upper Middle |
Short description | Construct an engineered stream channel at the USFWS Winthrop NFH as a new concept in natural-type chinook salmon and steelhead production supplementation. |
Target species | Chinook salmon and steelhead trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance | Supplementation |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | Ph.D. Research Assist. 12 mo Sr. Research Tech. 1 mo | $15,332 |
Fringe | Research Tech @34.5% | $900 |
Supplies | Channel inlet/outlet screens | $3,000 |
Construction | Gravel, woody debris, rock, riparian vegetation, concrete | $16,000 |
Travel | $7,260 | |
Indirect | Off campus rate 25.8% | $12,408 |
Subcontractor | Kinsel, WSU - engineered habitat | $5,602 |
$60,502 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $60,502 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $60,502 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
UI | E.L. Brannon | $20,631 | unknown |
USFWS | G. Pratschner | $10,000 | unknown |
USFWS | Technician | $4,000 | unknown |
USFWS | Backhoe use | $8,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None anticipated
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, an intriguing idea but the proposal is technically inadequate.Comments: The proposal lacks conviction that it is either based on sound scientific principles or offers clearly identified objectives. It states that mitigation hatcheries in the Columbia Basin have contributed to the loss of natural production [of salmon] through diminished genetic diversity and poor conditioning and it contends that hatchery smolt quality is poor because ancestral source populations are maladapted with respect to local conditions at the hatchery site, in particular, that timing of (emigration?) is 'inappropriate'. It further contends that successful supplementation requires "1 genetics of the stock, 2 the environmental requirements of the stock, and 3 incubation and rearing experiences that are consistent.." Reviewers take this to mean that early-migrating, spawning, smolting populations have been inappropriately stocked into hatcheries where late-migrating, spawning, and smolting populations would be more adaptive and vice versa. While the background section leads reviewers to believe that the project relates to appropriate broodstock selection for supplementation, it is not. It is about building artificial streams to emulate natural parr environments.
In any event, CBFWA itself observes that this proposal appears to have some redundancy with existing work by NATURES in the Yakima sub-basin.
The project proposes to "provide ...info..to assist up-grading/replacing traditional hatchery practices...model for rearing channel systems ..to replace lost habitat." This may be a very appealing rationale but the claim is unsupported. The proposal would benefit from a fuller discussion of failed projects at McNary & Priest Rapids-- in the Background section. While the rationale for incorporating "engineered" streams into supplementation hatchery systems has application to FWP, this proposal lacks sufficient specifics to be convincing.
The experimental design for monitoring and assessment is relatively undefined. The stated objectives are to 1. produce wild-quality fingerlings, smolts from the "new concept", and 2. monitor behavior and condition, comparing salmon to standard hatchery fish. The proposal does not show how these objectives can or will be measured and neglects to link them to a schedule of tasks. The time frame does not appear to be sufficient to allow for complete assessment and evaluation of results (fish condition, growth, and survival). Most of the methods are engineering methods to build the artificial stream and seem only indirectly related to the objectives. The features to be incorporated are vaguely defined and there is no evidence of a basis in literature or preliminary research for the design criteria. There are no smolt-producing methods given. What will be introduced into the artificial stream? Spawners? Eggs? Fry? Parr? Smolts? How big are these artificial streams? How many fish would be produced from them? Would they be artificially fed at all? How is this scheme different from NATURES? It seems similar in concept, and because NATURES has been going on for some time, this proponent needs to specify the differences. Fishery biological methods are given short shrift and are difficult to evaluate.
While the proponents are clearly eminent in their respective fields, they are not known as experts among habitat specialists. Appropriate collaborators do not assist them. Neither is known to have published any refereed work on salmon habitat requirements or salmon habitat engineering.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Significant overlap between this and the previous proposal.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Success should be measured in terms of adults, not smolts. Question the logic of putting the artificial stream in a hatchery that already has water quality problems. Suggest looking at the Entiat channel instead.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - The objectives are not clearly defined.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Comment:
This work appears redundant with some of the existing NATURES work in the Yakima sub basin.Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];