FY 2000 proposal 199501600

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is an ongoing project for which reviewers find little justification. The proposal indicates that evidence of introgression of introduced rainbows into native populations has been found, but this result was a virtual certainty given the presence of both species in the basin. There is little reason to continue this line of inquiry; if managers do not want introgression to occur, they should halt the stocking programs immediately and hope that the cutthroat trout can re-establish themselves. The project has had adequate investment of time and money to address the stated objectives, i.e. to document the extent of introgression. The morphometric analysis is not useful and is expensive. Project personnel costs are high. The CBFWA technical evaluation also notes that adequate data is in hand to establish that a problem exists, and that a management action should result. CBFWA comments that this proposal has outlived its usefulness as a research activity and that continued work will be of questionable value to fish.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- The project has completed it's objectives. There is enough info to determine there is a problem- use the information to determine a management action. It should be a low cost item in 2000.

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-The project ends in 2000.

General Comments: The expectations are that this project will be completed in 2000 at reduced funding level. Is not addressing the threat to the population-outlived the usefulness of research. It does not meet Criteria 12, 13, 14, 16. Room for cost reduction.

Comment:

The original June 15 ISRP comments still stand: This project has been receiving funds since 1995. They have found evidence of introgression, a finding that was a virtual certainty given the presence of both species in the basin. There is little reason to continue to seek evidence of introgression. If managers do not want introgression to occur, they should halt the stocking programs immediately and hope that the cutthroat trout can re-establish themselves in the basin.

The CBFWA technical evaluation also noted that this proposal had outlived its usefulness as a research activity and that continued work would be of questionable value to fish

Comment:

Comment:

Description/Background: Document the extent of hybridization among native westslope cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout and evaluate the effects of Dworshak resident fish mitigation on wild trout in the North Fork Clearwater basin.

ISRP Review: Do not fund (both reviews). This project has been receiving funds since 1995. The proponents have found evidence of introgression, a finding that was a virtual certainty given the presence of both species in the basin. There is little reason to continue to seek evidence of introgression. If managers do not want introgression to occur, they should halt the stocking programs immediately and hope that the cutthroat trout can re-establish themselves in the basin.

Project Sponsor's Policy Response: The ISRP's comments did not recognize that the primary purpose of the project was to create a genetic inventory to help determine the status of westslope cutthroat trout. The project is more comprehensive than how it has been characterized the ISRP. The need for monitoring and evaluation is recognized by the NPPC. The ISRP recommendation is not consistent with an approved program measure calling for genetic inventory work and stocking recommendations in the North Fork Clearwater drainage. Not funding the project would eliminate possible cooperative funding efficiencies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Council Recommendation: Do not fund. Provide transition funding of $65,000 to phase out the project. Bridge funding will give the project sponsors six months to analyze and summarize data and provide final project reports. The project sponsor will write two papers for publication in scientific journals, submit a final BPA report and present findings at professional fisheries meetings. Funding will also enable some samples taken from the 1999 field season to be reanalyzed and data evaluated. Funds will be disbursed based on completion of tasks described in the project statement of work and work schedule.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: