FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29014

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable - New project

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable - New project

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This is a good scientific proposal, with excellent background and justification, but it is weak in justification from the management perspective (Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, NMFS's BiOp, etc.), in its treatment of fish, and in description of sampling methods. The technical/scientific background presents abundant literature references to document past research on dams and their impoundment effects and on off-channel habitats and the need to study them. A statistical design is proposed that includes spatial controls (multiple reaches in the three rivers) and temporal controls (using historical aerial photographs). The proposal relies on the Entiat Subbasin Summary and the shared stakeholder goals, objectives and strategies for the three river basins for much of its justification relative to regional programs. The Forest Service's watershed assessment is also used as justification. The text describes in detail how the research will contribute to objectives and strategies of stakeholders and the fish and wildlife needs identified in the Subbasin Summary. Other than listing applicable RPA's in Part I, the proposal does not refer to the Council's FWP or the NMFS's BiOp, however. Relationships to other projects are given for several ecological studies (I-90 Corridor Species Distribution Study, USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, WDFW's ecoregional planning process) but BPA-funded work is only referenced collectively. The proposal states the overall objective (to quantify differences in fish and amphibian habitat and habitat utilization patterns between impounded and unimpounded streams) and follows with well laid out objectives, tasks, and general methods. A very brief statement of facilities notes that much is available from the proposer's organization (WDFW). There is a long reference list accompanying the many citations in the narrative. A listing of a well-qualified staff is followed by well-prepared resumes. Cost sharing is planned with BLM, USFS, WDNR, and other parts of WDFW.

Although the proposers are well versed in the relevant science and appear to be well connected to related science projects (especially for amphibians), they appear to be poorly connected to other BPA-funded projects (other than the Subbasin Summaries) and the institutional systems that drive them (FWP, BiOp). The proposal has high merit from a scientific standpoint but it would be even better if the authors were more versed in the environmental management context of their work. Nonetheless, the proposal directs its work toward making management decisions regarding river hydrology. Some errors or missing phrases make it difficult to understand the sampling scheme described in the objectives, tasks, and methods section. The sampling plans need to be clarified.

Overall, this is would seem to be an excellent project that could meet the ISRP review criteria if augmented by further information on fish, sampling methods, and relationships to the BPA/Council Fish and Wildlife Program and the BiOp.

In their response, the proponents should indicate if it is possible to use data collection protocols for aquatic habitat contained in the recent publication by Johnson et al. (2001):

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp.

Comment:

Comment:

This is a proposal to compare off-channel habitats and the fish and amphibians in them in rivers that are impounded and those that are not. Although the effects of impoundments on both the impounded reach and downstream channels have been recognized and studied, the alterations of ecologically rich off-channel habitats by changed river hydrology have not received much attention. This is particularly true for amphibians, which have not been studied much at all yet use such habitats extensively. The Entiat, Cle Elum and Tieton rivers are to be compared (the latter two in the Yakima basin; the Entiat is the only fully non-impounded river). Similar alluvial and constrained reaches will be selected for comparisons. If impoundment-altered hydrology results in reduction of habitat quality and quantity, then alternatives for remediation can be identified.

The initial scientific proposal was good, with excellent background and scientific justification, but was initially weak in justification from the management perspective (Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, NMFS's BiOp, etc.), in its treatment of fish, and in description of sampling methods. The technical/scientific background presents abundant literature references to document past research on dams and their impoundment effects and on off-channel habitats and the need to study them. A statistical design is proposed that includes spatial controls (multiple reaches in the three rivers) and temporal controls (using historical aerial photographs). The proposal relies on the Entiat Subbasin Summary and the shared stakeholder goals, objectives and strategies for the three river basins for much of its justification relative to regional programs. The Forest Service's watershed assessment is also used as justification. The text describes in detail how the research will contribute to objectives and strategies of stakeholders and the fish and wildlife needs identified in the Subbasin Summary. Other than listing applicable RPA's in Part I, the initial proposal did not refer to the Council's FWP or the NMFS's BiOp, however. Relationships to other projects are given for several ecological studies (I-90 Corridor Species Distribution Study, USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, WDFW's ecoregional planning process) but BPA-funded work was only referenced collectively. The proposal states the overall objective (to quantify differences in fish and amphibian habitat and habitat utilization patterns between impounded and unimpounded streams) and follows with well laid out objectives, tasks, and general methods. A very brief statement of facilities notes that much is available from the proposer's organization (WDFW). There is a long reference list accompanying the many citations in the narrative. A listing of a well-qualified staff is followed by well-prepared resumes. Cost sharing is planned with BLM, USFS, WDNR, and other parts of WDFW.

The response was thorough and exacting in answering the ISRP's questions in its preliminary report. The authors clearly know their subject matter very well. The response provided an excellent summary of the fish species expected to be present, with literature documentation. The tables for fish and amphibians are thorough and very informative. The ISRP's questions on sampling were answered. The response provided clear references to specific features of the Council's FWP and to the NMFS's BiOp. Other BPA projects in the vicinity were listed. Additional references were provided. The response further amplified the ISRP's belief that this is a worthwhile scientific proposal that warrants funding both for its quality and for the relevance to regional fish management.

Comment:

Comments
Very thorough proposal.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment: