FY 2000 proposal 20077
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 20077 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Inventory and Assessment of Irrigation Diversion Alternatives to Push-up Dams in the John Day River Basin, Oregon |
| Proposal ID | 20077 |
| Organization | U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Columbia River Area Office (BOR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Michael Newsom/Dave Nelson |
| Mailing address | 825 NE Multnomah Street #1110 Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5038722795 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Perform an inventory and assessment of diversion structures in the John Day River basin in order to support Council Program measures 7.6 and 7.7, in particular, the re-establishment of fish habitat and passage lost to human activity associated with irriga |
| Target species | spring chinook; summer steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1994 | Water Conservation Demonstration Projects - John Day River Basin, (Twenty projects divided into four phases under the NPPC’s 1994 F&W Plan, Measure 7.8.H) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 2.5 persons @ 6 months each | $88,000 |
| Fringe | $25,000 | |
| Supplies | Miscellaneous field gear, equipment rentals. | $3,000 |
| Capital | Two hand-held GPS systems; 2 Palm Pilots; etc. | $2,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle, per diem, hotel. | $12,500 |
| Indirect | $5,000 | |
| Other | Publishing and printing | $2,000 |
| Subcontractor | Field access and location aid; GIS work; reporting and mapping. | $50,000 |
| $187,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $187,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $187,500 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Note: In the implementation phase, beyond FY 2000, cost-share will be 50-50. | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Obtaining access to diversion sites in objective 1. Need to assess the existing structures during the late irrigation season in July and August which forces the report completion date beyond FY 2000.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The reviewers noted that the authors should resubmit the proposal next year with better descriptions of methods, personnel, coordination with other projects and watershed councils.Comments: The proposal includes good background and rationale, but it is lacking in methodology. Further, its classification as Information Dissemination seems inappropriate. It may better be included under Implementation and Management, or possibly Research Criteria. It is surprising that this effort has not previously been engaged by the appropriate John Day Watershed Councils and the Bureau of Reclamation, and that the Bureau of Reclamation's potential sharing of costs is not addressed. The proposal should be coordinated with Proposal No. 9801700. Four clear objectives are stated, but discussion of methods and potential benefits should be expanded. In proposing to collect data on fish resources, for example, the proposal does not adequately establish what data are to be gathered, and how. The claim of the ability to design a diversion structure that meets the needs of the water-user while improving fish habitat invites elaboration.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Plans should be developed for continued monitoring of trends of use by juvenile and adult fish, particularly in those areas used for rearing anadromous fish. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600. The proposal should further discuss its intent in behalf of better coordination (e.g., an outreach plan) with local groups and organizations, particularly in evaluating fish population and habitat factors at each diversion site, to help prioritize diversion alternatives.
The number(s) and type(s) of diversion dam structures in the John Day Basin are not identified. Quantitative values (cost savings versus biological benefits) of replacing the structures should be included if available. What biological benefits can be expected, and why might this proposal be more cost-effective than others? Given that habitat and biological benefits will vary and that costs will differ with various design alternatives, it is not clear how the "best" alternative is to be identified or how the authors expect to prioritize the benefits. How will data be collected on fish resources affected by existing push-up dams? Similarly, how will data be gathered on potential fish habitat, passage and survival gains associated with the new structures?
Comment:
Comment:
#1 has not coordinated with ODFW or tribe. Scale of proposal is too large…should focus on engineering on needed fixes. Duplicates some inventory work already being done (e.g Shawn R.). #2, 3 &7 #4 will promote but actual tasks won't help, just an inventoryTechnically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal does not include a watershed assessment or reference to a watershed assessment.Proposal does not appear to be coordinated with ODFW's existing program.
What are the biological benefits?
Will the project result in a management action? Who will have the authority to enforce any recommended changes?
Who will fund the installation of alternative structures?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];