Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Use a Multi-Watershed Approach to Increase the Rate of Learning from Columbia Basin Watershed Restoration Projects |
| Proposal ID | 22019 |
| Organization | ESSA Technologies Ltd. (ESSA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | David Marmorek |
| Mailing address | 300 - 1765 W. 8th Ave. Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6J 5C6 |
| Phone / email | 6047332996 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | David Marmorek |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Compile and compare data from restoration projects in multiple watersheds to enhance the rate of learning about effects of watershed restoration programs on aquatic populations and optimize design of future restoration projects and associated monitoring. |
| Target species | Anadromous fish, resident fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.75 |
$227,436 |
| Fringe |
included in Personnel costs |
$0 |
| Supplies |
Supplies |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
Travel to workshops, technical meetings |
$21,000 |
| Subcontractor |
# of tags: Statistical Advisor |
$12,600 |
| Other |
USFWS |
$30,000 |
|
Communications, Workshop costs |
$3,000 |
| $295,036 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $295,036 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $295,036 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| IDFG |
Data collection, technical advice and review |
$30,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
13; Yes - B
Date:
Dec 15, 2000
Comment:
This proposal is somewhat innovative in that it applies existing techniques to a new situation: the comparison of watershed restoration performance. It treats the many different watershed projects as a multi-watershed experiment from which lessons can be learned even though controls are missing. This project would serve a valuable role in the basin in providing a unique and potentially valuable analysis of restoration projects and would provide useful information for subsequent project management. A significant contribution would seem to be the continuation of the PATH Experimental Management philosophy in evaluation of watershed restoration procedures. The PIs are well qualified, and clearly have a grasp of FWP issues and the contents of ISRP reports. The sponsor demonstrates understanding of the role of experimental design, randomization, sampling units, etc. that is required in order to compare alternatives in watershed restoration projects, but does not provide detail on the statistical analysis to be performed. The proposal is presented as a multiyear project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001
Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposal's inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project.
This information will be necessary for subbasin planning and M+E activities in the future. (AFC) Although this project would be useful, the concept does not appear to be innovative. In addition, the goal would likely not be achieved within the allotted time period. Coordinating regional activities as expressed in the proposal take many years to achieve. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001
Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposal's inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project.
This information will be necessary for subbasin planning and M+E activities in the future. (AFC) Although this project would be useful, the concept does not appear to be innovative. In addition, the goal would likely not be achieved within the allotted time period. Coordinating regional activities as expressed in the proposal take many years to achieve. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)