FY 2000 proposal 199705100

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: Time constraints include land availability, coordinating with private landowners, potential limitations of conservation easement recipients, construction season limitations, contractor scheduling and permitting delays.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal does an adequate job of identifying the fishery problem in the basin and explaining how this project will address that need. It also makes a good connection to the FWP and the goals of other fish restoration projects in the basin. The major weaknesses of the proposal are lack of detail and documentation. In particular, the proposal needs to do a better job of documenting the scientific foundations for the strategy that is being proposed. It also needs an explicit discussion of why this implementation strategy was the most appropriate for the area and whether there would be any unwanted side effects. The methods and monitoring sections could have also been supported by more reference to scientific methods. The discussion on the budget was inadequate.

The proposal seems to lay out a reasonable sequence of activities leading from planning and assessment to restoration to monitoring. But it is not clear how the budget can be proposed before the assessment is completed? How is the $500,000 for purchases and easements defined if the areas in greatest need of protection or restoration have not been identified? This is particularly confusing when project #9704700 funded in 1997 was to "to quantify inaccessible off-channel habitat abutting the mainstem Naches and Yakima rivers…." If this is supposed to provide the "basis for habitat restoration and protection prescriptions," why are the results not presented here to identify funding needed for project implementation under this proposal? The planning proposed in Objective 1 sounds like it overlaps with the information that #9704700 was supposed to provide. In addition, the overall assessment of off-channel habitats proposed in #20117 also seems to overlap with this proposal.

The lack of site-specificity for the proposed project is further confused by the abstract that lists five reaches for project activity. Yet none of these areas are even discussed in the main body of the proposal! The design of the monitoring program is not described. It is unlikely that fish surveys within reconstructed areas will provide much information about effectiveness. These data will only demonstrate whether or not fish use off-channel habitats. The amount of money dedicated to monitoring is not described in the budget.

While this project seems to offer what could be some very useful restoration work, it does not provide sufficient background to evaluate the budget, particularly the figures for conservation easements and land purchases. Moreover, the amount of effort to be directed toward restoration and construction versus simple purchase and protection is not spelled out. The relationship to other similar work proposed in this and other Yakima proposals is confusing. It is not clear whether there is redundancy between this and other proposals noted above or how these relate to one another. Assuming redundancy is not a problem (but needs to be clarified), this project would seem better designed if it were to be rewritten to focus on (1) the technical justification for off-channel work relative to other potential restoration activities, and (2) an identification and description of priority off-channel sites through #9704700, #20117, and/or Objective 1 proposed here. These results should be used to later prepare an implementation proposal based on the sites in greatest need of protection or restoration. The budget request for easements/acquisition and construction work could then be tied to specific sites and actions.

The proposal indicates it is related to the supplementation project, however that connection is too vague. The project objectives do not include measurable performance criteria.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Tie past accomplishments to proposed work.

If so much work has been done in the basin, why is this assessment needed? Provide a better rationale for conducting this assessment. What is wrong with the existing information?

How will the fish biologist determine regions of high productivity? What criteria will be used to separate sites into high, indeterminate, and low fisheries potential? Why not use PFC (Properly Functioning Condition) in areas of high productivity?

Provide more details on budget, including personnel. How much time will be spent on different tasks and at what rate?

Provide more information in Section 10 Information/technology transfer.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website