FY 2000 proposal 20006

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: Field sampling should be done during lowflow conditions, from late August to early October. Sampling 3 replicates per site for 30 sites normally requires 20 to 30 field days. A 60 day window for field work will ensure sampling of all sites.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The proposal provides a good discussion of the scientific rationale and background for the IBI approach. It includes a logical sequence of activity from development and validation of the index to demonstration of its use as a monitoring tool. The author makes a good case for using benthic macroinvertebrates as an index to aquatic resource health. If the use of a benthic index of biological integrity (IBI) can be established and verified for the Yakima Basin, it would provide an additional tool for monitoring and evaluating the success of many different restoration projects within the basin. Based on our review of water quality and habitat proposals, many projects within the basin apparently have not incorporated population measures of habitat response in their monitoring and evaluation. An IBI could provide that link. The proposal does not, however, evaluate alternative approaches or their relative strengths and weaknesses. The proposal makes a good case for applying the method to watershed assessment and for tracking progress toward "normative" conditions. However, trends toward normative conditions will likely require monitoring over a longer period than the proposed five years for this project. Long-term climatic changes will likely have a strong interactive effect on the rate of landscape and habitat response to restoration activities.

In addition to representing stream conditions and land-use patterns in the sample design, it may also be important to consider the types and distribution of habitat treatments in the subbasin. For example, sampling could be stratified by major categories of treatments to better interpret habitat responses to numerous land use, riparian, and instream restoration projects scattered throughout the basin. Ideally, some "control" streams where little restoration work is undertaken could be included in such a design.

The linkage between the proposed IBI and salmonids is relatively weak. It is not clear that samples collected primarily in riffles will be indicative of food webs tied to salmonids that rear in other habitats. The rationale and justification for selecting 30 sample sites is not discussed.

This proposal may offer a useful addition to population monitoring projects in the Yakima that may be less sensitive indicators of habitat change than invertebrate assemblages. Combining the IBI approach with results of fish population and habitat monitoring may improve the ability to interpret diverse ecological responses to restoration effects. The proposal makes a case for integrating IBI results with habitat and population data collected by other projects in the subbasin. However, the proposal does not demonstrate an awareness of many of the ongoing projects in the basin.

The proposal could be improved in several additional ways. First, the methods for selecting and characterizing index sites from a range of "pristine" to "severely degraded" are not well described, yet this step is critical to the construction and verification of IBIs. Second, the writers do not acknowledge the full range of opportunities to collaborate with other relevant projects, although the author may be aware of them. For example, we would strongly recommend that if the proposal is funded, the authors coordinate where possible with Dr. Todd Pearsons, who is leading the Yakima species interaction studies. In addition, coordination with the monitoring and evaluation of YIN Satus Creek and Toppenish Creek restoration projects could be beneficial to both groups.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes - Well done and innovative. However, the index (IBI) is not widely accepted by benthic macroinvertebrate biologists.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

There are two groups of projects that the Council considered for funding. First, the ISRP recommended projects for funding that were rated as either tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA (the "elevated projects"). Two law enforcement projects were added to this "elevated" list because they did not receive a funding recommendation from CBFWA, but were rated as "fund" by the ISRP. The second group of projects are those that the ISRP identified in its report as "innovative" and offering promising new techniques or approaches (the "innovative projects").

All of the projects that the ISRP found to be "innovative" (and also meeting the scientific review standards) were included in first list of "elevated" projects by the ISRP. The Council itself did not combine the project lists.

In past reports, the ISRP has expressed concern that new and innovative project proposals were not receiving sufficient attention in the funding process. Two years ago, the Council created a targeted request for proposals process for certain areas of interest that had not otherwise received funding recommendations, and a relatively small amount of funding was provided for qualifying projects. The Fiscal Year 2000 solicitation for proposals indicated that an "innovative proposal fund" would be established to support new initiatives of this type.

However, no criteria were specified for "innovative" proposals and most new projects were not proposed as "innovative." The Council requested that the ISRP prioritize the list of "elevated" projects (42 total). The Council also asked the ISRP to consider four specific criteria in its rankings. They were asked to determine if the project: 1) dealt with an unimplemented program area; 2) improves existing projects; 3) has systemwide significance; and 4) advances critical watershed assessment work. The ISRP ranked the projects from 1 to 42 based on their assessment of the overall worth of each project and indicated which of the criteria were met by each. The Council reviewed the ranked list of 42 projects, and determined that it would not recommend funding for all of them. The Council established $2 million as a planning target for funding projects on this list. In order to bring discipline to the selection process, the Council decided what type of projects it wanted to recommend the limiting funding for. The Council determined that it wished to focus on research-oriented projects that the ISRP found to be innovative, and also met two or more of the four criteria identified above (as determined by the ISRP). At the February 1, 2000 work session meeting in Portland, the Council recommended possible funding for eleven projects from the list of 42 elevated projects. Those projects are:

20045, 20057, 20034, 20102, 20106, 9803500, 20064, 20006, 20067, 20076, and 20054.

Review of the ISRP rankings shows that only these projects were identified by the ISRP as fulfilling an unimplemented program area and having systemwide significance. These 11 projects were mainly in the upper half of the overall ranking; the lowest-ranked project on the list ranks 24 out of 42. All 11 projects are research-oriented and, by definition, fulfill part of our current fish and wildlife program and have importance for the system as a whole. The Council found that this seems a reasonable subset of projects to be funded as "innovative."

The Council has previously indicated its desire to cover all of the initial costs for "innovative" projects at the time they are selected, allowing a new competition for funding of innovative projects to be held each year without creating a burden on future years' budgets. Unfortunately, the proposed budgets for these eleven projects, over the next four years, would exceed $8 million. (The budgets for the first four projects alone would exceed $4 million.) Rather than fully fund a few projects, the Council's proposal is to provide initial funding for preliminary research, prototyping, and proof of concept for all 11 projects. Specifically, the proposal is to offer each project $200,000 (or the amount initially requested by the sponsor if that amount is less than $200,000), for a total of $2,119,000. After completion of the initial work and a final report on that work, project sponsors would be free to seek additional funding as a part of the regular project selection process.

While $200,000 is much less than the sum requested for most of these projects, it is still a substantial amount by the standards of most research grants and should lead to meaningful results. This approach also allows us to gain further information on the value of research before making a large, long-term investment.

Project sponsors designated to receive this funding are being asked to prepare a revised plan of work reflecting the reduced funding. The revised plan would be reviewed by Council staff and the chairman of the ISRP to assure that the revised plan still represents valuable research that is consistent with the proposal originally reviewed by the ISRP. In summary, the staff proposal is as follows:

• Fund only the 11 projects identified by the ISRP meeting as both fulfilling an unimplemented area of the Council program and having systemwide significance.
• Offer each of these 11 projects $200,000 (or the amount requested if less than $200,000).
• Review by ISRP chair and Council staff of a revised plan for each project to assure that proposed work is valuable research consistent with the original proposal.
• Require final report to be submitted before project can apply for additional funding.
• Projects funded within this project category may not reapply in subsequent years for funding under the "innovative" category, which the Council expects to explicitly develop for future project solicitations but may apply for additional funding within the regular project selection process

After the Council and ISRP representatives review the revised plans for the eleven projects noted above, and confirm that valuable innovative research can be conducted and reported under the funding and other conditions discussed above, the Council will advise Bonneville under separate cover of its final recommendations for these projects. The Council anticipates that it can provide final recommendations for these projects to Bonneville in late March. Bonneville should refer to that separate letter on this issue for the final Council recommendations on these projects.

Note: Unless the context indicates otherwise, "fund" means that the Council would recommend to the Bonneville Power Administration that a project be funded. The Council's fish and wildlife program is established by statute for implementation by Bonneville, and the Council itself does not directly fund fish and wildlife mitigation. However, in recent years, Bonneville has followed the Council recommendations closely.

Comment: