FY 2000 proposal 198402500

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: Catastrophic natural events such as floods, windstorms or extreme fire danger

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a generally well-written and comprehensive proposal that integrates riparian area and instream habitat enhancement with specific monitoring and evaluation projects to determine the success of these treatments. Habitat protection is viewed as the most productive method of maintaining quality fish habitat. The proposal is to continue working with private landowners to improve stream habitat by rehabilitating riparian zones and instream activities on Meadow Cr., Hurricane Cr., Whiskey Cr., and Lostine R. The project has been in operation for 15 years. This proposal has a good scientific/technical background and strong ties to regional programs. . Watershed assessment was used to identify areas where habitat improvement was needed. Evaluation is accomplished using photopoint comparisons; water temperature monitoring; stream channel and vegetative response; and biological surveys of terrestrial and aquatic organisms. However, information on the monitoring of progress is vague, e.g., "inventories of nesting birds, fish population estimates" is not very informative. These are good biological endpoints to measure, but the actual changes measured and the specific target objectives should be specified. The proposal presents project history in an evaluative way that is very useful. However, the proposers should provide analysis on why some areas are improving, others static, etc. It would also help to know more about the reason for 15 year leases: will desired results (e.g. mature overstory) be achieved in that time?

Reviewers also offered several more specific questions and

Comments: Reviewers asked whether there might be a mismatch between priorities for habitat restoration and the money allocation: e.g., only 5% is going to Objective 2, improving instream habitat, and 23% to fences and weeds. Parts of Task d of Objective 4, bird nesting surveys, etc., seem to be beyond the scope of this project and reviewers asked whether these might be more efficiently carried out by a separate group.

Although the proposers caution the reviewers that the project has been criticized in the past for its high cost, one reviewer suggested that the opposite might be the case - that it is underfunded. While the project describes progress over its 15-year course, the achievements should be critically evaluated and presented: Stream habitat is of critical importance to survival and spawning in the regional streams. It would seem that ensuring good habitat is a first step in the process of restoring salmon and other species. Project 9202604 provides information on critical habitat locations that give guidance to this project. Are locations identified by 9202604 ones where they find fish because habitat in those places is relatively good? Maybe places where fish are not found should get more attention.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

High personnel and equipment costs.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website