FY 2000 proposal 199405400

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: None known

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The project is ongoing and productive with links to a number of other projects, even some outside of the basin. Continued success of this and some of the others depends upon continued activity. The problem is clearly identified and is significant; the project is providing key, critical data. It is likely the most comprehensive research project on bull trout ecology in Oregon. The information obtained will be useful across the region, as well as be a solid contribution to science in general. The proposal is excellent. The objectives are clearly explained with appropriate tasks designed to address them. The techniques to be used are state of the art, with the subcontractors being the most appropriate and best able to do the work.

The proposal had several shortcomings. They need to provide additional details concerning the metapopulation work. How will the results of the genetic analyses be linked to the findings on competition with bull trout or variation in migratory patterns? In other words, a little more detail was needed on how the different elements of the study fit together. It is good that they provide a clear listing of testable hypotheses. However, the hypotheses need to be tightened, i.e. temperature regime, hybridization, sampling regime in use versus available sites. Some of the hypotheses have obvious answers: "There is no significant difference between observed bull trout distribution and a random distribution." Surely by now we know something about the relationship between stream temperature and trout distribution. For each of the habitat-related objectives, the authors need to know something about where the fish do not spend time. If they are doing this it should be described in the proposal.

Under methods, the authors state they will focus on tasks from 1999-2001, yet objective 1.0 is done (isn't it?). The objectives under the Methods section aren't always parallel to proposal objectives (see 4.1, 5.2), and virtually no mention is made of he statistical tests to be used (other than "data will be analyzed . . ."). After five years, they need better reporting on results and more detailed description of methods. Despite some weaknesses, the proposal is certainly adequate and funding should be a very high priority.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- It's a short lived assessment project.

General Comments: This violates the 10% rule and there is a change in the scope of work. It is an ongoing monitoring project that does not provide on the ground action. It doesn't meet criteria 13,12--it is not hydro-related and doesn't have a loss statement. It doesn't represent an urgent requirement based on the intent of the program.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website