FY 2000 proposal 199001800

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is strictly a monitoring and evaluation proposal to determine the effectiveness of past habitat improvement projects in terms of perceived habitat quality, fish abundance, and fish use. It is an existing project that does not provide enough results of its work since funding began several years ago to show benefit to fish and hence does not warrant continued funding. The proposal cites only the FWP as its basis, with no relationships to other projects in the Upper Columbia Basin indicated (when it is clear from other proposals that there is a large, coordinated, regional effort). Neither the Past Accomplishments nor the Project History sections catalog results in terms of fish increase (not even citation of BPA annual reports), only that they did the work. There is good background and rationale, however. The methods appear to be the same as those written in 1996. Reviewers are prepared to accept that approach, but it does not reflect any learning and adaptation since then. It is not clear whether the populations were monitored the same way before and after treatments. The proposal states that statistical analysis procedures are not established, even at a time when the study is nearly complete. This is a poor practice; a statistical plan should have been part of the initial monitoring plan. No staff resumes are provided to establish staff qualifications.

Overall, the monitoring program appears to be sound, but there is very little detail presented on methods. Clear reporting of results-to-date could allow evaluation of soundness. More discussion should be offered on why certain techniques (e.g. Channel Stability Evaluation Procedure and Timber, Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Procedure) were chosen over alternatives. More detail on milestones is needed. We stand to learn a lot from this monitoring and evaluation program and it might be given high priority for funding if adequate results had been presented.

A strength of the program is that overall it is a restoration program for a native stock. All in all, this seems like a reasonable project but it would benefit greatly with some evidence of results after all these years. No further funding should be provided until results are made available for evaluation.

The ISRP's FY99 report noted that the proponents provided no history or description of concrete results. That they neglected to address results this year is unacceptable. The project should not be funded until some accounting is offered of results and accomplishments. The goals are good, and the topic and results are potentially very important for the region.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no There is no measurable biological objectives and no milestones listed.

Comment:

Seems to be continuing good work since 1990 but no biological results shown.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Comment:

The primary concern of the ISRP was the lack of any report on past accomplishments. The project managers have provided some preliminary results in their response, and cite some annual reports and quarterly reports that have been submitted since the proposal was prepared. In addition, some thought has been given to the ISRP comment that a statistical analysis procedure was not yet developed. Statistical advice is being sought from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Further efforts to provide concise summaries of methods and results would be helpful to future reviewers.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website