FY 2000 proposal 199802600

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: Weather may alter start and/or finish date of field work each year. this contingency is factored into the timeline: A field season of ~90 days is given a 150 day window.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project is ongoing and productive. 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. Continued success in setting baseline standards depends upon continued activity. The type of work described in this proposal should be done, and it is unfortunate that more scientists are not involved in identifying genetically pure native trout populations. The information obtained will be useful across the region, as well as be a solid contribution to science in general. However, there is insufficient description of native trout assessment efforts in the state. How would the study be linked to WDFW's inland native fish identification and management program? Are efforts redundant?

The proposal could be strengthened in several ways. First, they should have explained how the study sites were identified, e.g., was a comprehensive survey of headwater streams undertaken in the subbasin of interest to establish these sites as candidate areas for remnant populations? All fish sampled in each stream seem to come from a very small region. Second, they should have explained why angling (the usual sampling method) will produce a representative sample of the population, e.g., why "fishable" stream reaches were assumed to contain the full range of genotypes and morphotypes present in the system. (This is not a traditional way of collecting samples.) Third, they should have gone into more detail on how the photographs will be used to establish morphological uniqueness, e.g., will body proportions or meristic features such as scale counts be possible from the photographs, or will the emphasis be mainly on coloration? Finally, they should have provided a justification for the sample size and indicated what age groups within the sample will be used for genetic testing. Some justification for this would be good, as would a justification for 20 samples. Some emphasis is placed on samples fitting a normal distribution based on length, but normal distributions, by themselves, don't tell us much without variance. They should test some of their sampling assumptions.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 2,4,6,9 and there is no benefit to target species. There is an overlap with project 9902400-They should fund both at 9902400 funding level. There are no valid strategies.

Programmatic Criteria: no- There is an inappropriate characterization of cost share. It doesn't meet criteria 12,13,15,16,17.

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

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: