FY 2000 proposal 20034

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: None expected in first year.

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 to enhance riparian cottonwood systems in the upper Columbia River system. The proposer argues that the "structure and function" of riparian cottonwood ecosystems within the upper Columbia has been degraded as a result of dams and water management, and that this degradation has affected fish habitat. The proposal would survey, on a river mile basis, the remaining cottonwood habitats, and would infer the extent (river miles) of habitat lost. The focus would be on the Flathead, Kootenai, Yakima, and Methow basins. The approach would utilize both field surveys, and satellite imagery, including very high resolution (3 m) multi-spectral imagery from the IKONOS system. The project would in a sense be an extension of work already being undertaken by the same team in the Canadian portion of the Kootenai basin.

This is a refreshingly well-written proposal, which outlines the problem, and the approach, succinctly. It is more of the nature of a research project than many of the continuing projects, but represents an area in which the Program must make an investment. The proposal is clearly written and the work well justified. The Resource Issues section is extremely comprehensive and informative. Proposal objectives are excellent and related to Methods in a concise fashion and then clearly related to the budget. The international aspect of this project is also appealing. It is the best of the new project proposals in this set. The proposal appropriately cites relevant FWP measures, Kootenai sturgeon BiOp, NMFS hydrosystems BiOp, and watershed coordination for the Kootenai. It is related to 2 ongoing projects and 2 proposals (last year's notations are used, so it is not clear the status). Objectives, tasks, schedules, and budget are reasonable. There is potential cost sharing, but not included in the budget. Lots of references lend credibility. There is excellent scientific background and demonstration of the authors' primacy in this topic. It relates the work well to flow regulation in the Kootenai for sturgeon (common objectives). Excellent objectives, tasks, and deliverables. Methods are good. Facilities and equipment are good, and purchases seem justified. There is an excellent multi-national staff. This is the type of research the Program should encourage as it addresses the larger ecosystem issues important for the restoration of conditions that will favor native fishes.

The argument that natural hydrographs are as important to vegetation as for spawning conditions of sturgeon has merit and fits within the concept of the normative river. Therefore, adopting hydrographic regimes that mimic the natural hydrograph will presumably bring dividends to the riparian zone as well as to the aquatic organisms. The proposed work is relatively inexpensive and will go a long way in helping us determine the extent to which we need to restore cottonwood forests.

The review group did have a few concerns, though. The budget doesn't seem to include an item for acquisition costs of the satellite imagery. If this is obtainable without charge, some indication of the arrangements should have been made. How critically dependent is the first year of the project on the IKONOS launch, what happens if it is delayed? Its only conceptual fault is that it does not go further and describe all trees in the riparian assemblage, although this would be an ambitious undertaking.

Some detailed criticisms for consideration by authors of this proposal: There is no mention of any analyses of historical hydrographs of various catchments to be examined or a of way to determine the hydrographic needs for seed dispersal and successful germination. Is this an oversight and implied? The condition of the floodplain is not taken into consideration. Many streams have had reaches inundated by impoundments, dredged, channelized, straightened, and riveted. Streams have been deliberately disconnected from the flood plains, in many cases to prevent flooding, therefore the conditions of the floodplain may not be as hospitable for seedlings. Are the alluvial soils that encourage successful germination of seeds available on the shorelines of stream reaches now inundated by impoundments?

In summary, this proposal has very important programmatic implications for understanding riparian mitigation, fits with the overall FWP goal for native species, and fits within the normative river concept. The ISRP notes this proposal as an especially important one to fund.

Comment:

Comment:

This project proposes applied research tied to future management actions.

What will the outyear funds cover? The objectives will be met by end of FY2000, but outyear costs extend for 4 years.

Even if the sponsor quantifies the relationship between flow regimes and cottonwood development, will there be the opportunity to modify flow regime (river operators or regulators)? Will other factors limit the recovery of gallery forests (i.e., levies, agriculture, city development, grazing)?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

There are two groups of projects that the Council considered for funding. First, the ISRP recommended projects for funding that were rated as either tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA (the "elevated projects"). Two law enforcement projects were added to this "elevated" list because they did not receive a funding recommendation from CBFWA, but were rated as "fund" by the ISRP. The second group of projects are those that the ISRP identified in its report as "innovative" and offering promising new techniques or approaches (the "innovative projects").

All of the projects that the ISRP found to be "innovative" (and also meeting the scientific review standards) were included in first list of "elevated" projects by the ISRP. The Council itself did not combine the project lists.

In past reports, the ISRP has expressed concern that new and innovative project proposals were not receiving sufficient attention in the funding process. Two years ago, the Council created a targeted request for proposals process for certain areas of interest that had not otherwise received funding recommendations, and a relatively small amount of funding was provided for qualifying projects. The Fiscal Year 2000 solicitation for proposals indicated that an "innovative proposal fund" would be established to support new initiatives of this type.

However, no criteria were specified for "innovative" proposals and most new projects were not proposed as "innovative." The Council requested that the ISRP prioritize the list of "elevated" projects (42 total). The Council also asked the ISRP to consider four specific criteria in its rankings. They were asked to determine if the project: 1) dealt with an unimplemented program area; 2) improves existing projects; 3) has systemwide significance; and 4) advances critical watershed assessment work. The ISRP ranked the projects from 1 to 42 based on their assessment of the overall worth of each project and indicated which of the criteria were met by each. The Council reviewed the ranked list of 42 projects, and determined that it would not recommend funding for all of them. The Council established $2 million as a planning target for funding projects on this list. In order to bring discipline to the selection process, the Council decided what type of projects it wanted to recommend the limiting funding for. The Council determined that it wished to focus on research-oriented projects that the ISRP found to be innovative, and also met two or more of the four criteria identified above (as determined by the ISRP). At the February 1, 2000 work session meeting in Portland, the Council recommended possible funding for eleven projects from the list of 42 elevated projects. Those projects are:

20045, 20057, 20034, 20102, 20106, 9803500, 20064, 20006, 20067, 20076, and 20054.

Review of the ISRP rankings shows that only these projects were identified by the ISRP as fulfilling an unimplemented program area and having systemwide significance. These 11 projects were mainly in the upper half of the overall ranking; the lowest-ranked project on the list ranks 24 out of 42. All 11 projects are research-oriented and, by definition, fulfill part of our current fish and wildlife program and have importance for the system as a whole. The Council found that this seems a reasonable subset of projects to be funded as "innovative."

The Council has previously indicated its desire to cover all of the initial costs for "innovative" projects at the time they are selected, allowing a new competition for funding of innovative projects to be held each year without creating a burden on future years' budgets. Unfortunately, the proposed budgets for these eleven projects, over the next four years, would exceed $8 million. (The budgets for the first four projects alone would exceed $4 million.) Rather than fully fund a few projects, the Council's proposal is to provide initial funding for preliminary research, prototyping, and proof of concept for all 11 projects. Specifically, the proposal is to offer each project $200,000 (or the amount initially requested by the sponsor if that amount is less than $200,000), for a total of $2,119,000. After completion of the initial work and a final report on that work, project sponsors would be free to seek additional funding as a part of the regular project selection process.

While $200,000 is much less than the sum requested for most of these projects, it is still a substantial amount by the standards of most research grants and should lead to meaningful results. This approach also allows us to gain further information on the value of research before making a large, long-term investment.

Project sponsors designated to receive this funding are being asked to prepare a revised plan of work reflecting the reduced funding. The revised plan would be reviewed by Council staff and the chairman of the ISRP to assure that the revised plan still represents valuable research that is consistent with the proposal originally reviewed by the ISRP. In summary, the staff proposal is as follows:

• Fund only the 11 projects identified by the ISRP meeting as both fulfilling an unimplemented area of the Council program and having systemwide significance.
• Offer each of these 11 projects $200,000 (or the amount requested if less than $200,000).
• Review by ISRP chair and Council staff of a revised plan for each project to assure that proposed work is valuable research consistent with the original proposal.
• Require final report to be submitted before project can apply for additional funding.
• Projects funded within this project category may not reapply in subsequent years for funding under the "innovative" category, which the Council expects to explicitly develop for future project solicitations but may apply for additional funding within the regular project selection process

After the Council and ISRP representatives review the revised plans for the eleven projects noted above, and confirm that valuable innovative research can be conducted and reported under the funding and other conditions discussed above, the Council will advise Bonneville under separate cover of its final recommendations for these projects. The Council anticipates that it can provide final recommendations for these projects to Bonneville in late March. Bonneville should refer to that separate letter on this issue for the final Council recommendations on these projects.

Note: Unless the context indicates otherwise, "fund" means that the Council would recommend to the Bonneville Power Administration that a project be funded. The Council's fish and wildlife program is established by statute for implementation by Bonneville, and the Council itself does not directly fund fish and wildlife mitigation. However, in recent years, Bonneville has followed the Council recommendations closely.

Comment: