FY 2000 proposal 199705300

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: High runoff exacerbating spawner surveys, inability to secure leases/buy lands due to current lease (which may extend past projected completion date) or unwilling landowners, GIS info which may need to be gathered rather than integrated from other sources

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is an example of a well-written habitat restoration proposal. It is a generally well written and convincing proposal. The program appears to have some strengths, and the programmatic needs and description suggest this project should have high priority. The synthesis of information collected from last year's operation suggests that the project has a high likelihood of identifying and making necessary changes in the watershed. The proposal could have described more explicitly alternative approaches to the problem and why they were rejected, and unwanted side effects and how they were considered.

This proposal offers a well-integrated set and logical sequence of objectives based on a conceptual approach that relates food webs and survival of diverse steelhead life stages to the "natural" discharge regime. It provides a good technical review and rationale for the fishery problem and chosen research approach. However, more citations are needed. A summary of results from the project to date could have provided additional support for continuing the work proposed here. For example, if a baseline of age structure and population densities has been established, these results could have been reported as an example of the sampling methods and performance measures. The rationale and importance of this project relative to other ongoing or potential restoration activities in the basin is not evaluated. This is not a fatal flaw since the chosen research design is supported by a clear conceptual approach.

The specific methods chosen for each objective should be better defined and supported. It is not clear, for example, whether the Proper Functioning Condition is the best method for riparian assessment, what kind of spawner surveys will provide a reasonable estimate of adult steelhead, or what the difficulties might be in estimating juvenile abundance from snorkel counts. The tradeoffs of alternate methods should be discussed relative to the scientific literature or current project results to support the chosen alternatives. There is very little description of the sampling design or sensitivity of the analyses to evaluate whether the monitoring effort has a reasonable chance of detecting changes associated with improved flow. It is also not clear how the monitoring design will be able to distinguish the effectiveness of flow restoration measures proposed here from the effects of active restoration measures proposed for the upper Toppenish watershed (#9803300).

The rationale for the estimated budget for purchasing land is not clear, particularly since the priority lands and water for acquisition presumably will not be decided until the Project Management Plan is prepared.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

No information on why restoration methods were chosen or how effective they are.

Clearly define the link between restoration activities and moderating the flow regime.

How much water is needed to maintain summertime flow?

How much will fish production increase if the flow is augmented? Consider monitoring the fish response.

O& M part of budget seems excessive for office rental, vehicles, etc. Provide more detail on why this much is needed.

Comment: