FY 2000 proposal 199700900

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: Ability to capture adequate number of gravid females and potentially spawning males for tracking.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a proposal for the fourth year of an ongoing project "… to restore and rebuild the white sturgeon populations in the [Lower Snake River]". Apparently this is proposed base program funding, rather than any specific project. The major problem being addressed appears to be lack of current information on sturgeon stocks. $400K has been apparently spent to develop a study plan, but no data have as yet been gathered. There is no clear evidence of collaboration with other researchers except for an agreement to share data.; it's unfortunate that there more active cooperation with IPCO is not proposed. There is little information about what, specifically, has been accomplished with prior years' funding. The study objectives (e.g., "assess the current status …" and "provide the basis to evaluate …") are vague. It is not at clear how the "Proposal Objectives" relate to the Fish and Wildlife Program Objectives. The publication plan is inadequate; after three years, and expenditure of over a million dollars, the project has produced no peer-reviewed publications. No one is identified to conduct the computer simulation that will be necessary to answer the questions posed in the proposal. The panel was especially concerned about the large expenditures to date and the apparent lack of progress towards the study objectives.

This project would benefit from an overall project review, which can't be accomplished effectively given the information presented here. The Council should to set a termination date for this project ("outyear costs" section of the budget suggests that it will continue indefinitely), and should require that a multi-year proposal be submitted.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no-The objectives could be accomplished in other areas. Tasks may not be investigated as limiting factor in adult fish.

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-Until further review.

General Comments: There may be some budget review carryover. Top heavy in personnel for a field project.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: This project was rated as "fund" by the ISRP in its second review, but was held for further consideration of policy issues by the Council. The project would evaluate the need for and identify measures to protect and restore white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams to obtain sustainable, harvestable levels.

ISRP Review: ISRP recommended Fund in Part in the first review and Fund in the second review, but reiterated their concerns expressed in the first review. Those concerns included the lack of data provided by the study, the lack of collaboration with other ongoing sturgeon projects (particularly the collaborative effort taking place under project 8605000), the lack of active cooperation with Idaho Power Company in its sturgeon study, vague study objectives, the lack of demonstrable progress in the previous year, and the lack of any published materials after three years of study. ISRP suggested the Council set a termination date for the project and require a multi-year proposal be submitted.

Policy Issues: Council Member Bloch requested further information on the project, specifically on the coordination and collaboration with the other sturgeon projects and the Idaho Power relicensing efforts, prior to sending the project to the Council for any funding approval. No policy justification was required of this project.

CBFWA held a meeting with the Nez Perce Tribe, ODFW, Council on November 19, 1999 to resolve technical and policy issues with the project. The meeting resulted in a coordination agreement among the managers present (NPT, ODFW, WDFW), which will be transmitted in a letter from CBFWA Executive Director Brian Allee to the Council. The agreement names the principles to the agreement, and establishes coordination procedures, goals and schedules for both technical coordination and information sharing.

Council Recommendation: Fund in full. After meeting with management entities at the CBFWA offices on November 19, 1999, the managers appear to be in agreement that information sharing needs to take place in a multi-party exchange. The goal of the parties involved is to enhance research coordination and sturgeon management, and promote understanding of sturgeon activities.

CBFWA Executive Director Dr. Brian Allee sent a letter to Director Lohn on November 24, 1999 detailing the November 19 agreements and recommendations from the management entities. The letter stated:

"Consensus agreement at this meeting was achieved on the following points:

1. General agreement to coordinate on technical and information sharing on white sturgeon projects by all parties including, Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Council staff, BPA staff. It was recognized that Idaho Power staff is presently coordinating and is willing to be involved but was not present at this meeting.
2. Specific agreement by the meeting attendees to coordinate on the project statement of work, tasks and progress reports.
3. Achieve improved management of white sturgeon in the Columbia Basin by better coordination of management plans.
4. Joint commitment to cross project participation opportunities for staff during the field season to promote better understanding of field conditions and to provide mutual support.

In addition, it was agreed to rotationally host a white sturgeon workshop to promote and enhance coordination and information transfer on an annual basis among BPA, ODFW, IDFG, WDFW, NWPPC staff, Idaho Power staff, NPT and others. The format discussed for the annual workshop would include presentations on recent project results and new technology developments coupled with subsequent breakout sessions with project sponsors to apply this information to specific tasks within the project statement of work. The site for the annual workshop will be chosen by the hosting agency or tribe. The initial workshop is scheduled for February 2000 and will be hosted by the NPT.

In approving the project for funding, the Council recommends that Bonneville include the points of agreement detailed in Dr. Allee's November 24 letter in BPA's contractual arrangements with all management entities involved in sturgeon projects in the Columbia and Snake mainstems.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website