FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25016

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:

Fundable if adequate response is given to ISRP concerns.

This is a very good proposal in technical respects, although it lacks links to the Subbasin Summary, FWP and BiOp. Development of the relationships expected from this project is long overdue. We can expect the usual USGS thoroughness and academic rigor. Project personnel, however, need to provide more explanation of how they intend to make the links to the biological community, specifically to fish. They need to explain how a quantitative assessment of benthic macroinvertebrates will provide better understanding of the primary food production necessary for riverine fish. Is this production defined as the rate of tissue elaboration? How does their version of "primary food production" relate to fish production? They should provide analysis of existing macroinvertebrate data to show that the variance in similar situations does not overwhelm their ability to draw useful conclusions. Identification of macroinvertebrates (in such samples) to species is a very time consuming and, thus an expensive undertaking. Will the assessment include a detailed study of what the fish eat, in what quantity, and how it changes in time? The need for such detailed analysis and how it relates to the predictive relations expected from the project should be described in more detail. The methods and justification for the food chain work are unlikely to yield the expected results due to the high variability inherent in stream insect samples. In their words, the primary hypothesis that will be tested during this project is: "In-stream conditions are measurably altered by stream-restoration actions, which ultimately promotes the health and survival of target fish species." That is the assumption of all restoration work. What is needed is a routine (simple checks, presence/absence, relative abundance) or an effectiveness monitoring program (i.e., more detailed in a few key instances) of the fish response. What is proposed suggests a process-oriented model based on detailed physical data collection versus the preferred and likely less expensive approach of measuring key response variables in a control versus treatment experiment. ). See 25065 on FLIR, the same technique to be used here, and consider the monitoring approach suggested in 25010. A response that justifies this level of detailed process-orientated approach versus an experimental analysis is required.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Good proposal in technical aspects, although lacks links to the Subbasin Summary, FWP and BiOp. Project proponents need to explain how a quantitative assessment of benthic macro-invertebrates will provide a better understanding of how "primary food production" relate to riverine fish production? Furthermore, proposal suggests a process-oriented model based on detailed physical data collection as opposed to a "preferred" and likely less expensive approach of measuring key response variables in a control versus treatment experiment.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Within Birch Creek, ODFW is conducting an ongoing basic monitoring program to support its habitat improvement work (project # 1987-100-02). However, we wish to see this and similar M&E work in the Umatilla sub-basin reviewed with external parties both to identify tasks and methods that may be unnecessary and to identify important and cost-effective improvements that could be added.

Comment: