FY 2000 proposal 20154

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: Enhanced water sampling and analysis program needs to be in place to monitor effectiveness of improvements that RSBOJC proposes to implement.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project is a good idea. This proposal does an adequate job of describing the fishery problem they are trying to address and the background for the proposed solution. The major weakness of this proposal is that it does not support the ideas in the proposal with enough detail and documentation to convince reviewers that the project has been well thought out and will succeed. The availability of water quality data could be useful to a variety of other projects in the basin. However, we question the appropriateness of BPA funding through the Fish and Wildlife Program. Possibly part of it could be funded through the FWP, but it seems agricultural agencies have a responsibility to monitor their contribution to the pollution of the Yakima River. The sampling program should be described better. In addition, there needs to be a better description of how the information will be specifically used. The project should be explicitly related to the needs of the other RSOBJC projects and to other projects in the basin.

If this project is needed primarily because of the proposed water conservation and water quality projects, then funding of this work should be contingent upon acceptance of those proposals. Again this and the other projects should be integrated in an umbrella proposal. The umbrella should assess alternative approaches and build a rationale for a particular combination and sequence of proposed water quality activities by the RSBOJC.

This project like others of the RSBOJC is described as a demonstration project. But it does not specify why a "demonstration" is needed, who the audience will be, or why a limited demonstration is the best approach to improve conservation over the long term. The small proportion of the budget (5%) allotted to compiling and publishing results suggests data analysis and interpretation are not a high priority, which raises questions about use and accessibility of the results. It is not self-evident that expanding the RSBOJC effort is necessarily the most cost effective alternative as opposed to relying on other agencies (p. 4401), particularly if outside consultants must be hired to do the analyses. While the proposal may represent the best option, more information should be given to show why other agencies are not better equipped to do the work.

The design of the monitoring program is only vaguely described. While some of the major questions of the monitoring effort are discussed, the current monitoring design that this proposal would augment is not described. How are sampling sites chosen? What level of replication is required? What is the frequency of sampling? Are there any results from the current monitoring effort to demonstrate the kind of analyses that are intended and the utility of the results to date? More technical details and references should have been included in the methods section to show the project would use the best available scientific techniques. Likewise, the future plans for using the baseline data to judge success or failure of the program should have been much more developed. Personnel for the project are listed by name, but information is not given that allow reviewers to evaluate their qualifications.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Monitoring plan lacks details. How many samples will be collected and how? How many more sample locations and why? How exactly is the water quality monitoring plan tied to with restoration activities within the basin?

What equipment is needed and why?

Why are two technicians needed?

Provide more information on key personnel (Section 9) and Information/technology transfer (Section 10).

Comment: