FY 1999 proposal 198402100
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Enhance John Day River Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 198402100 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jeff Neal |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 515 John Day, OR |
| Phone / email | 5415750561 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / John Day |
| Short description | Establish long term riparian, fish habitat and tributary passage improvement on private lands. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9605300 |
North Fork John Day Dredge Tailings Restoration Project |
Share equipment and personnel between public and private lands. |
| 8400800 |
North Fork John Day Habitat Improvement |
Allows continuity between landownerships on John Day streams. |
| 8402500 |
Grande Ronde Habitat Enhancement |
Share equipment and personnel. |
| 8710002 |
Umatilla Habitat Improvement |
Share equipment and personnel. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
2 FTE’s 1 temp. 60% is for O&M |
$85,000 |
| Fringe |
at 38%. 60% is for O&M |
$32,300 |
| Supplies |
Fence materials, instream materials, field supplies |
$62,063 |
| Operating |
add 60% of Personnel, Fringe benefits, Travel and Indirect. |
$17,500 |
| Capital |
Pickup tool box , rock drill, solar water pumps. |
$0 |
| Travel |
for 3 people, 60% is for O&M |
$16,000 |
| Indirect |
22.9%; except Capital and Subcontracts. 60% is for O&M |
$54,157 |
| Subcontractor |
Grant Soil and Water Conservation District; Various local contractors for fence materials and construction. |
$112,980 |
| $380,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $380,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $380,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Catastrophic natural events like floods, windstorms or extreme fire danger.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to provide clear rationale for the cost in relation to O&M – the concern is that the cost is excessive for meeting the objectives of operations and maintenance only.Management Issue: Classic example of high cost structural projects that require excessive money to maintain in the future.
Technical Issue: Clearly identify the direct benefits to fish and wildlife, and whether those benefits are being achieved.
Part of the project should be committed to monitoring the maintenance and operations activities. Need to describe a monitoring program to determine if the original proposal objectives are still being met; and to evaluate the benefits and results from the O&M.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This project has been funded for several years so it needs to present more information on accomplishments and the results of monitoring.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $447,889 |
$447,889 |
$447,889 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website