Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | John Day Fish Passage Barrier Inventory |
| Proposal ID | 25061 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Kenneth F. Bierly |
| Mailing address | 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kenneth F.Bierly |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | This project provides staff to conduct a basin-wide inventory of potential barriers to fish passage. The project will develop a joint prioritization approach to barrier elimination based on biological importance. |
| Target species | chinook, steelhead, lamprey, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 44.78 |
-119.59 |
John Day subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 154 |
NMFS |
BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9801800 |
John Day Watershed Restoration Project |
This project will provide priorities for the on going project |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Compile Existing Information |
|
0.5 |
$38,112 |
Yes |
| 2. Survey Potential Barriers |
|
1.5 |
$76,225 |
Yes |
| 3. Prioritize Barriers |
|
0.5 |
$38,113 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Survey Barriers |
2003 |
2004 |
$76,225 |
| 3. Prioritize Barriers |
2003 |
2004 |
$38,113 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 2.0 |
$77,000 |
| Fringe |
OPE @ 40% |
$31,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$10,000 |
| Travel |
|
$25,000 |
| Indirect |
rent & phone |
$9,450 |
| $152,450 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $152,450 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $152,450 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| OWEB |
Prioritization Assistance |
$40,000 |
cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund, a response is not warranted. This proposal is too brief and does not justify its need or adequately explain its relationship to other proposals. It gives no indication of monitoring and evaluation or personnel.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund, a response was not warranted. This proposal is too brief and does not justify its need or adequately explain its relationship to other proposals. It gives no indication of monitoring and evaluation or personnel.
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
This project provides staff to conduct a basin-wide inventory of potential barriers to fish passage. Comments
John Day is one of the best studied subbasins in this region. There is little or no detail in the proposal about how it would be carried out or why it does not duplicate similar inventories in the basin. Does it propose to fill gaps in existing database? This is a BoR priority subbasin, wouldn't this task fall under their obligation?
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001
Comment:
ISRP ranked “not fundable”. Resource managers in the basin are concerned about the lack of coordination on this proposal by OWEB and suggest that the work has already been done. It appears that many of the barriers have been identified previously but that their prioritization for removal has not. This project would support the pilot M&E effort in the John Day Basin.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002
Comment: