FY 2000 proposal 198812025

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: Potential constraints for full implementaion of the fall chinook and coho programs will be dictated by compliance to the NEPA review.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is primarily a bureaucratic subproposal. It describes the committee structure and coordination processes for the plan. It does not address the technical implementation of the project. This is an awkward organization (separating project management as a distinct subproposal). It would make more sense to fold management into a more complete description of the technical program. Contrary to the title, it has very little to say about data or habitat. This project seems parallel to the WDF proposal, Policy and Technical Involvement (9506425), but the title implies data and habitat work that it does not specifically address.

The relationship to habitat improvement projects discussed on p. 4119 is not clear and seems indirect at best. The proposal notes that a vast amount of data have been collected in previous years. But it does not say whether these data were useful, how they were analyzed, or how this proposed management structure will improve on information management. It does not evaluate alternative management or data structures or indicate why the proposed structure is preferred.

The umbrella proposal (20510) lists over $1 million in indirect costs. This project should be reviewed by appropriate financial experts at BPA to determine if some of the tasks described here should be funded as part of the indirect. The project history section must include explicit examples of adaptive management as it has been used in this basin. For example, were the findings listed on pages 3-5 of the M&E proposal incorporated into the program through adaptive management? The proposal should include an explicit description of the adaptive management process as it is employed in the basin. Dave Fast is budgeted for more than 36 months for FY 2000 in this set of proposals.

Neither the proposal nor the umbrella proposal presented adequate information on the fishery problem that this proposal addresses. This had to be inferred by reading other proposals within this group or relying on the reviewers' previous knowledge. The technical background on the need for project management and decision making was logical but lacked any citations or documentation. In general, the proposal did not address the Category II questions asked of this kind of proposal very well. It is not clear how the success of this project has been determined or will be determined. The description and justification for the budget section was inadequate.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? - Major details lacking.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - Objectives not clearly defined and not measurable.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? no - Inadequate resources to achieve objectives.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website