FY 2000 proposal 20102

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: There are no foreseeable constraints

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a new proposal by an interdisciplinary group at Oregon State University and the University of Oregon to take a new look at habitat restoration protocols. The proposers argue that the $200 million spent to date on habitat restoration in the PNW has been largely unsuccessful, due to poor planning, absence of a scientific basis, and absence of post-project monitoring and evaluation. They propose to implement a set of long-term studies at an ecosystem restoration site in northeastern Oregon, at which background data required for assessment and improvement of habitat restoration activities could be undertaken. Overall, this is by far the best proposal submitted for this basin.

The authors are well qualified to take on the work, and it is evident that restoration activities have not been well focused in that past. The panel was especially impressed that the proposal is based on a pilot project (unfunded, at least by BPA). This proposal is also notable because it examines (actually measures) the responses of streams, fish and other biota to restoration. Most restoration efforts measure inputs (miles of fence etc.) rather than consequences. The panel did feel that there should be more emphasis on information/technology transfer. An information transfer plan should be explicitly requested by the BPA COTR at the time of funding. The panel is confident that will result in many conference publications and journal papers (the record for which is woefully inadequate in most projects sponsored by the program). However, there also needs to be an element of information transfer that assures that this information would make it to the parties that need it the most, especially in the near term. For a project funded at this level (over $310k per year) the project should have at least one person dedicated to education and outreach. The intention to have "… seminars of research results for land managers …" and "… on the ground demonstrations and workshops …" is good, but it needs to be a more central focus of the project.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Needs more detail.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - Needs more detail.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? no - Needs more detail.

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: