FY 2000 proposal 199803300

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 is the major constraint on operations. Winter conditions can inhibit access over primitive roads or in stream channels. The length of the season for propagating vegetation is limited by duration of soil moisture

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The proposal provides some useful context regarding factors affecting the storage capacity of watersheds. However, it jumps from this textbook discussion of watershed processes to a list of objectives and specific methods for Toppenish Creek. The proposal does not identify the specific problem areas, limiting factors, or rationale for the particular activities listed. It is therefore impossible to evaluate whether the proposed actions are the most useful among all others that might otherwise have been chosen.

The proposal notes that a watershed assessment was initiated in late 1998. These results are needed to provide a site-specific restoration plan that is based on the limiting factors and source areas contributing to specific problems in Toppenish Creek watershed. The proposal does not discuss any potential risks of the treatment methods. The proposal should refer to the technical literature to give some indication whether the proposed methods have been effective elsewhere or are likely to be effective in this watershed. The proposal does not discuss whether there are passive alternatives to the proposed headcut stabilization activities and instream retention structures.

The program appears to have many strengths, including the expansion from the Satus Creek restoration efforts and emphasis on monitoring. The proposal could have been improved by providing more scientific citations and documentation. The programmatic needs and goals could have been supported by citations supporting the decline in populations abundance, changes in the watershed, or the watershed assessment. Objectives were stated in terms that were measurable, but they were primarily focused on structural changes in habitat. These are easier to measure in the short-term than population characteristics, but ultimately the success of the project must be judged by increases in the production, distribution, and diversity of fish in the watershed. The proposal could have described more explicitly alternative approaches to the problem and why they were rejected. It is not clear how a budget for this project could be developed without an explicit plan for the number of sites and treatments needed. It would seem logical that the watershed analysis should be completed first to provide a foundation for a detailed restoration plan. If these results are not yet available, then a plan development phase may be needed for this project before trying to implement the specific activities described here.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Clearly describe the existing condition within the watershed.

Demonstrate the link between actions and direct biological benefits.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website