FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199801004

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Primarily due to increase in number of PIT tags purchased for tagging subyearlings released from the acclimation facilites as well as the labor and other costs associated with this additional PIT tagging. Also the cost of coded radio tags increased approximately 11%. Other additional costs include increases in administrative support (ESA Coordinator salary and fringe, travel costs, office expansion shared costs, etc.) and the purchase of a closed trailer to transport PIT tagging equipment.

Reason for change in scope

In recent years there have been significant numbers of subyearling fall chinook from Lyons Ferry Hatchery that have been made available for acclimation and release at the Pittsburg, Big Canyon and Captain John acclimation facilities after the yearlings have been released. We determined that monitoring and evaluation of these subyearlings would be most appropriately included in this project.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The discussion of the problem of tag loss and other tag effects in the verbal presentation was not clear. What are the consequences of tag loss or negative effects of tagging on fish? The proposal does not adequate describe and interpret results to date. The presentation was helpful in adding to this, but more summary is needed of what has been learned and problems that might need solution. On-going M & E projects should be present results in the proposals and presentations. For instance, the SAR data should be reported.

The evaluation objective for these programs (this proposal and 199801005 [O&M for acclimation ponds] ) is not clear. The program objectives are to achieve de-listing goals for fall chinook, to restore harvest, and to maintain the genetic integrity of the natural populations. The M&E described in this proposal and 199801005 does not seem to adequately address these goals. Are they to be addressed in another proposal (if so identify it), or is there a deficiency identified here?

The methods section presents hypotheses for each objective but then also provides a "corollary" for each also. These read as if they are the alternative hypothesis but this is not what a corollary would normally imply. A corollary follows directly from what is proven, so that if the original hypothesis was correct then a corollary follows obviously from this result or statement.

Comment:

Comment:

While the authors have responded to most of the original review comments, the reviewers remain concerned about aspects of this proposal and its response. Nevertheless, this monitoring needs to continue, so further clarification is requested.

1) The response provides a summary of data and analysis to date. It should also include a discussion of problems of interpretation or shortcomings apparent in the data or how they are being used to address ultimate goals.

2) The response gives much useful information about the tagging procedures and purposes, but does not answer the question about consequences of tag loss or negative effects of tagging.

3) The response does not answer all of comment 3: How does M&E address maintenance of genetic integrity of natural populations. What was the base level of genetic integrity defined and how is it now being estimated?

4) It is also not clear what is meant by the emphasis on maximizing program efficiency through adaptive management to achieve delisting. This use of the data should be more clearly described, including both rationale and procedures to be used in evaluation. What adaptive management plan has been developed or are the authors simply referring to "trial and error"?

Comment:

Comments
A good proposal. Needs stronger links to past work and the implications of the results. The potential results are important for the management of fall Chinook hatcheries.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
184

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
184

Comment:

ISRP rated this ongoing Nez Perce monitoring project as Not Fundable. The ISRP noted: "The ISRP clearly recognizes the need to continue these types of assessments, but on the basis of this proposal, the ISRP cannot conclude a sound scientific program is in place...Nevertheless, this monitoring needs to continue, so further clarification is requested." The scientists then posed four specific areas they wished the project sponsors to address and clarify. Bonneville recommended funding the project conditioned on the receipt of a "detailed and comprehensive research plan to be submitted for independent scientific review. Project review will consider the necessity of all proposed objectives/tasks." NMFS rated the project as "a good proposal."

The Council believes there are compelling policy reasons to fund the project and agrees with ISRP and Bonneville that the project needs to continue. The Council understands that the Nez Perce have submitted a response to the ISRP's questions and concerns outlined in the ISRP Final Review. We recommend conditioning the funding on the ISRP's satisfaction that the project sponsors have addressed ISRP concerns, and recommend that the ISRP be directed to proceed with its review of the Nez Perce response. The project would be held to the FY01 plus 3.4 percent level.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website