FY 2000 proposal 20111

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: The window of opportunity for collecting milt from adult salmon in is narrow. The design of this proposal is to take milt from males which have already naturally spawned (note that the volumes of necessary for cypreservation are small, and that spent males remain an adequate source of milt for this purpose). It is envisioned that a consensus process will determine which stocks this project will ultimately select. Of the initial list, a range of schedule constraints exists: Spring chinook spawning in the Klickitat spawn peaks in late August and early September. Winter Steelhead spawning in the Klickitat occurs from March through June. Summer steelhead, if selected, spawn from January through March. Fall chinook in the Hanford Reach spawn from late October, peak in mid to late November, and taper off into December. On a different time scale, the opportunity to collect exclusively wild Spring Chinook from the Rosa Dam on the Cle Elum River will expire in the year 2000. Ideally preparation for field work should commence in mid 1999.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: One way to preserve allelic diversity among endangered stocks is to cryopreserve semen from a sample of each stock so that if habitat were re-established, it would be possible to introduce genes into fish in habitat. Technology is said to be available. Although recommended last year, this proposal was not funded but work was done as a demonstration. The proponents conducted a conference on the issue and report that the proposal grows out of recommendations of that conference, but we are told nothing about other recommendations of the meeting or why a program is justified/ needed. Reviewers question the rationale because the proposal includes so little scientific documentation (e.g., in Technical and/or Scientific Background) and hence must be challenged on the basis of scientific principle.

The proposal is not entirely clear in distinguishing between objectives and tasks, and the methods are not specifically tied to each task. The stated objective is to sample stocks, place samples of semen in storage at 2 labs, and ultimately to transfer them to "recognized gene banks" for long term storage. However, no recognized gene bank is identified, so reviewers question the survival prospects of preserved material in long-term storage. The limited ability of a small agency to undertake a very long-term responsibility, more than one career-span, calls into question the likelihood of success.

The proposal could be better written and edited. For example, sections 8 a and b are identical. No CV's are given. There is no reference to peer-reviewed publications of the proponents' research. This proposal should be reviewed with the other cryopreservation efforts on a programmatic level. There should be a standard protocol for all regional efforts. Examination of cryopreservation efforts should include the development of criteria for high priority material. How does it fit in with captive broodstock, supplementation, and habitat restoration activities? The proposal does not identify a method of choosing stocks. Why the Hanford stock? It is one of the few healthy basin stocks. Is there indication that this stock is heading toward extirpation? How does this relate to 9703800? A basin wide cryopreservation effort is a good candidate for an RFP by the Council.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: