FY 2000 proposal 199700400

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: Weather, funding, equipment functioning, permit approval. It is impossible to identify all constraints and problems that may occur. While we will make every attempt to stay on schedule, unforseen events, equipment failure, etc. will delay progress.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project proposes to collect baseline information about species distribution and density, and habitat quality and use, in areas above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams that a prior synthesis of available information indicated was lacking. The specific methodologies proposed seem scientifically sound and this information is crucial for biologically sound management of fish populations. Thus, this proposal was highly recommend for funding.

The proposed work is related to a specific FWP measure, the Blocked Area Plan, and a Kalispel Natural Resources Department Management Plan. It is related to 13 existing projects in the area and one proposed project, for primarily information exchange and coordination. There seems at first reading to be overlap with other projects on all resident species, although this project is coordinating the stock inventories of other projects. A good list of accomplishments in this regard is given, including setting up a data storage and analysis system, conducting a Spokane River assessment, and mapping the distribution of resident fish. There is currently emphasis on certain data sets (Box Canyon Res., Boundary Res., Yokum/Half Moon lakes, tributaries of Spokane R. and Lake Roosevelt). This prioritization is appropriate, especially considering the other projects underway. There is significant cost sharing with industry (PUD and Seattle City Light). The narrative is well written and informative, giving results. The work follows the ISRP recommendation for conducting an inventory of resident fish. The objectives and methods are good, although the methods are more extensive than was necessary. This is a well justified and planned project. There is some shifting in emphasis from inventory of existing data to obtaining more baseline data, which is appropriate. Multi-year funding might be appropriate.

This work is certainly significant to the FWP, with good match on costs. But the methods should describe sampling design in addition to the procedures described. What does "important to note this is not a statistical study" mean? How can you monitor without a statistically designed sample? The proposal needs a completion date and critical milestones. There is no explanation of the subcontract work. Subcontracts need to be considered as part of the proposal.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-This is a survey based project.

General Comments: There is a concern in spending time and money radio tagging non-native fish.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website