FY 2000 proposal 20080

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: Flow conditions in the spring may have an effect on PIT-tag detection rates at Lower Snake and Columbia River dams.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project is directed to the problem that some steelhead released at Dworshak Hatchery do not emigrate. The hypothesis is that manipulation of steelhead feeding levels during the winter prior to release will result in a greater proportion of the population leaving the system after release. The authors propose to test the prospect that their treatment groups (which are not identified) will experience differing capabilities for adaptation to saltwater. If that is a valid possibility, it should be tested before undertaking the expensive marking and release experiments included as part of the proposal.

The authors can expect a troublesome management problem associated with changing densities in the rearing ponds. They neglect to describe how they will prevent rearing density from becoming an uncontrolled variable. Preliminary experiments should be conducted at the hatchery and laboratory to address the saltwater adaptation problem, and to explore methods for dealing with density and other variables such as pond location. If and when a modified proposal is prepared, it should include data from preliminary trials (some suggested above).

The proposal is inadequate in that it seeks a dietary, hence physiological, solution to a problem that may be primarily behavioral, and ignoring behavioral matters that would confound the experiments. In their research design, the proponents appear to ignore important material cited in their own narrative in Section 8a (Tech. Sci Background), which brings up behavioral aspects. For example (p. 10, lines 6-10): "Hatchery practices can have a significant influence on the parr-smolt transformation process [refs], and need to be developed based on knowledge of how they directly influence the growth, physiology, and behavior of steelhead leading up to and during smoltification." They go on to state (p. 10, lines 24-27) that "a review of the literature indicates that high variability in size (length) within a juvenile steelhead population is in part a product of social interactions, and the establishment of dominant and subordinate individuals, where dominants grow faster than subordinates. . ." But the proposal addresses merely the overall growth rate of the population, not its variability, and therefore misses the point. Moreover, the sponsors do not acknowledge in their design that growth, physiology, and behavior are not independent of each other. The proposal is written as if growth rate could be manipulated in isolation.

The authors ignore the traditional hatchery procedure of occasional "grading" (sorting by size with simple, sieving jigs) to separate socially dominant, faster growing fish from the "runts," which results in faster growth of the latter. They fail to consider that this alone might solve the problem, obviating elaborate and possibly much more costly dietary manipulations in hatchery practice and physiological measurements in the proposed research. Even more importantly, they fail to consider that manipulating diet without grading the fish may be futile.

The proponents are "promoting the idea," as they put it, "that the real need is to. . ." (page 10, lines 14-15). This suggests a preconception, which may rule out consideration of the full spectrum of reasonable possibilities. This runs counter to the unbiased inquiry that is necessary in experiments.

The Methods section neglects to describe the need for buying a digital camera or laptop computer and software, nor is the need explained in the narrative on budget. The travel allotment of $7,500 is not justified. For all these reasons, the reviewers judge that the proposal is not based on sound science.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Tasks do not address Objectives 2-4

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? No - Is meeting objectives really feasible?

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

Comment:

Comment: