FY 2000 proposal 199901200

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: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The proposal describes an important project that could have important positive effects on the salmonid habitat in the Yakima Basin. The proposal gives a good general description of the relationship to other projects. However, it lacks specificity. There are many habitat projects either ongoing or proposed in the Yakima Basin. The proposal should have stated some specific examples of its coordination and evaluation role with a few selected examples of those projects. The proposal should have given more explicit examples of accomplishments. For example some explicit information on the matrix would have been helpful. What gaps in habitat activities were identified through the matrix? What limiting factors have been identified and how are they being addressed? Although the idea is good, the proposal is not adequate.

It is not always apparent where the YRWIC has its own functions separate from those of the individual member agencies that participate. For example, does Objective 2 imply that the YRWIC is going to implement its own habitat projects or does it simply play a supportive role by endorsing those projects it considers best? Will the YRWIC develop its own planning strategy, and if so, how will this differ from those of the individual member agencies? Will the YRWIC develop its own scientific criteria for monitoring effectiveness (e.g., Objective 5)? What process is used by the Interagency Council to make decisions, and how are conflicts resolved between the Council and the priorities of its individual members?

The proposal is primarily administrative in its focus. It does not provide an indication of the criteria it will use to set project priorities (other than a vague reference to "limiting factors analysis"), what scientific criteria will be used to monitor effectiveness of the projects, or how the results and activities of the Council itself will be evaluated. The emphasis of the Watershed Information Center seems to be a bookkeeping function (e.g., where projects have and have not been completed) rather than the evaluation function implied by Objective 5.

The council has been working for several years, but no concrete results are offered to illustrate how the council is providing important benefits that should continue to be supported through this proposal. The objectives imply some scientific role for the YRWIC, but most of the discussion focuses on an administrative and political (e.g., project endorsement) role. This makes it difficult to interpret what the YRWIC intends to provide other than "coordination."

Although it appears to have agency support, it is not clear whether the YRWIC has decision making authority, or is a clearing house for information or is a forum for public participation. This is further confused by the authors noting that the Yakima River Watershed Council, which the YRWIC is linked with, has been disbanded. We are not told what replaced it, and whether that changes the role of the YRWIC. It also was not clear until the very end of the proposal why the Ki-Yak was submitting this proposal as opposed to some other group. Most of the objectives identified in the proposal seem justified, but the provisions for evaluating the success of the project seem poorly defined.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Can the sponsor demonstrate that the proposed activities will improve fish habitat?

How exactly will the limiting factors analysis be done?

It is not clear how the Council will actually implement projects. It appears this is a coordination project.

The link between limiting factors analysis and ranking of proposals is unclear. How is the council involved in ranking proposals and why?

Objective 2 is unfocussed. What will be accomplished? Task "a" states that a science-based criteria for ranking proposals will be established, while Task "b" describes another evaluation system. This seems redundant.

How will the sponsors adapt themselves to changing needs within the basin as stated in Objective 5?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: