FY 2000 proposal 199706000

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: A habitat assessment by coordinating agencies is the framework for long-term work within each subbasin. Proposal develoopment for projects in the near-term will be substantially based on previous planning prioritizaitons.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project is similar to companion Project 9608600, except that the focus is on the eastern portion of the basin. Many of the comments made on 9608600 are relevant to this project as well. Specifically, a) there is a danger of the work becoming fragmented and including activities not directly related to restoration goals, unless leadership is asserted by the coordinating personnel. To that end, an outline of the specific types of actions is required, as written this proposal lacks a convincing argument that anything other than "coordination" will result; b) the project needs a more pronounced focus on increased flows that are closer to natural seasonal hydrographs, and c) the proposal offers only a vague discussion of methods. Unlike proposal 9608600, which at least provided a "toolkit" of possible approaches, no attempt is made to indicate what will be done. A typical example under Section e (project objectives) is the statement (for objective 2) that the product will be "watershed assessments …". Does this mean a report, or are on-the-ground improvements to be made? The panel was particularly concerned about the apparent lack of a fisheries focus. For instance, the proposal states "The critical assumption upon which the program was initiated was the anticipation that all groups, governments, industries, and individuals with resource interests in the Clearwater basin would endorse a watershed level coordinated effort to address fisheries concerns" . Yet there seems to be no fishery biologist involved in the project. It appears that this project may be a physical-social exercise having no direct relation to the fish or in which the genuine fishery aspects will be easily lost sight of. There is no discussion of the biological effectiveness of the project. The effort needs biological oversight and biological auditing. Finally, the proposers appear to have ignored Council's guidance that watershed assessments are to be the basis for restoration efforts, and are to be completed before embarking on specific restoration project elements. No indication is given of how the project relates to a watershed assessment, or if one even exists

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

It is difficult to determine whether the restoration activities are the direct result of the coordination activities.

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress).

Biological objectives and milestones are not clear. Monitoring plan needs more detail.

The proposal is better written this year than last year and provides more justification.

Comment:

This is the companion to project 9608600, and the recommendation is the same. The projects are designed to provide some of the oversight and coordination function to a group of watershed restoration projects. This function is badly needed, but has been weak to date, and both projects are in need of careful review and recommendations of the type that can only be provided by a site review team. Furthermore, by the time of the province review, this project needs to demonstrate that there is a coordinated biological monitoring plan in place. The ISRP recognizes the urgency of the province review, and has recommended that the Clearwater basin be among the first to be scheduled. Note that ISRP is now recommending that the component restoration projects within the Clearwater basin on which work is already underway be funded in the interim (which is a change for most from a "delay funding" recommendation).

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website