FY 2000 proposal 199803400

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: Time constraints may occur from permitting delays, coordination with private landowners, construction season limitations and subcontractor schedules.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal does a good job of defining the fishery and related habitat problems and identifying a practical solution. Specifically, the proposal provides a strong rationale for restoring passage and defines priority areas where the work is needed. However, the rationale that reestablishing tributary habitat will replace lost mainstem habitat is not obvious (p. 4558). A discussion of the salmon life histories that would likely be restored as a consequence of tributary access is needed. The relationship between potential spawning and rearing habitat areas also needs to be clearer. A map of project/tributary locations is needed to better understand the proposed actions.

The monitoring design is not adequately described. There is also some confusion between local and basinwide measures of success. The proposal suggests that it will test the hypothesis that the ratio of adult recruits per spawner will increase as a result of the proposed work. But elsewhere the proposal states that "because project monitoring will typically start with zero fish . . . only very basic monitoring is proposed." This latter statement focuses on site-specific monitoring of the tributaries where passage is improved, while the hypothesis suggests a broader basinwide evaluation of salmon productivity. The proposal notes that survival estimates from outmigration data at the Chandler facility are possible but will be complicated by supplementation efforts underway in the basin. These problems raise doubt that the basinwide success of this effort can be fully evaluated due to other ongoing work in the basin. This may be more a reflection of the design and sequence of supplementation efforts than the passage work proposed here, but it raises concerns about the ability to learn from simultaneous treatments throughout the basin without adequate controls to evaluate the efficacy of each treatment effort. At the very least, the specific monitoring design proposed here needs to be described further.

Little or no information is provided to evaluate the adequacy of personnel/facilities for construction of screens and fishways. The proposal includes $500,000 for construction costs and easements that cannot be defined (other than Wilson Cr.) until the barrier reports and action plans have been completed. It would seem more logical to divide this proposal into two phases, submitting a separate implementation proposal after the detailed assessments from objectives 1-4 have been completed.

The proposal was submitted as a watershed council/model watershed proposal, but it may be more appropriate as an implementation and management proposal or even as a construction project. Sixty-five percent of the total budget ($500,000) was allocated to construction costs. The proposal could be improved by providing better references or citations for objectives where data were to be collected or analyzed. Given the large amount of money proposed for construction activities, the proposal should have also provided more detail on how the construction would be managed. This would help convince the reviewers that the best available scientific methods will be used and that construction contracting and scheduling would proceed as proposed.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Identify where the easements and land purchases will occur? What will you do with money if land is not purchased?

Does Wilson Creek include one of the ten tributaries mentioned in Objective 2?

Provide more detail about how rearing and spawning habitat in these tributaries was assessed.

How will other supplementation efforts in the basin complicate monitoring?

Objectives and tasks are redundant.

Are the cost/benefit analyses based solely on cost? Consider the potential for increasing fish production.

How will the most productive riparian and in-stream habitats be identified. (Objective 6)

How will the fish be marked? How many?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: