FY 2000 proposal 199802400

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: Timing of all objectives contingent on favorable sampling conditions.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: There were some very worthwhile parts of this project, e.g., road crossing/culvert inventory and fish habitat inventories in the Warm Springs River. However, why various activities are planned is unclear. The macroinvertebrate and sediment sampling elements were weak. There were no apparent reference sites for the macroinvertebrate samples and there was no mention of biological metrics used to interpret invertebrate data (e.g., IBI, EPT, RIVPACS, etc.). The author used a lot of acronyms (e.g., EDT and CIA) without explaining them or convincing the reviewers that these techniques apply well here. The sediment study employed McNeil samplers, which suffer from inaccuracies compared with tri-tube freeze core methods. Also, there was no description of fractionation methods or expression of results, e.g., % fines, geometric mean diameter, median phi, etc. Section 3 was blank. The fact that the abstract and the proposal were worded in such a way that past activity was unclear was disconcerting and did not help clarify just how this relates to other activities. The greatest weakness of this proposal was the chronic lack of explaining how this proposed project would benefit fish and wildlife. They could spend a lot of money and get equivocal data that is not readily applicable. The reviewers had several other questions. Under objective 1, what will the authors compare these samples to (for determining least impacted streams)? Under objective 2, what will constitute a barrier? Under, objective 3, what criteria will be used to assess "quality" of spawning gravel? Under objective 4, what will the habitat data be compared to (to support fish populations)? Who are the subcontractors? Do they have criteria for selecting the subcontractors?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The sediment sampling portion of the proposal is now adequately justified and this will likely reveal more than the proposed macroinvertebrate survey. However, the response does not state how the potential inaccuracies of the McNeil core sampling method will be addressed or what threshold(s) of the Fredle Index will be considered harmful. The ISRP would like to know how data from sediment samples will be interpreted.

The macroinvertebrate component of the proposal is still not adequate. Suitable reference sites should be given in the proposal. The ISRP needs to know that there are relatively pristine reference sites against which invertebrate samples from altered streams can be compared. These sites should be located in nearby watersheds with similar geological and topographic features.

With regard to the proposed habitat surveys, there will apparently be no attempt to calibrate habitat surveys to fish populations. Granted, populations may be depressed because of off-site influences resulting in low recruitment, but applying bull trout habitat suitability criteria developed in the Deschutes Basin to the Warm Springs River system without some local calibration is likely to result in reduced ability to interpret results of habitat surveys. The response states that data will be compared with habitat inventories on federal lands, but not what sites will be used for comparison.

With regard to the question of selecting sub-contractors, the ISRP was interested in the method used to assess the scientific qualifications of potential contractors.

The ISRP will expect that project managers address the above unanswered concerns in the Council's proposed ecological province review.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: The project would monitor stream conditions for macroinvertebrate populations and sediment, evaluate fish passage at culverts and stream crossings, and inventory fish habitat in streams on the Warm Springs Reservation.

ISRP Review: The ISRP recommended funding in part on both reviews to perform Objectives 2 (culvert inventory and 4 (fish habitat surveys). On the second review, ISRP approved funding Objective 3 (Sediment sampling). ISRP believed that the proposal failed to adequately reference suitable sites for the macroinvertebrate study (Objective 1) and thus recommended deleting that study.

Sponsor Policy Response: Project sponsors have concurred with ISRP on the deletion of the macroinvertebrate study. Thus, there is no real policy issue. Sponsors did state that the CBFWA funding level would not allow them to perform all the objectives ISRP deemed worthy of funding. They had requested $160,917 from CBFWA and received only $35,420, enough to fund the culvert inventory. The total funds required to complete the three ISRP recommended objectives would be $112,700.

Council Recommendation: The Council has approved projects at the CBFWA-recommended level, assuming that CBFWA has resolved budget disputes with the project sponsors. The Council recommends approving the project at the CBFWA recommended level of $35,420. This level of funding will allow the culvert inventory (Objective 2) to continue. We could recommend that the project use the quarterly review process to seek funding the ISRP approved Objectives 3 and 4.

Comment: