FY 2000 proposal 199801800
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 |
|---|---|
| 199801800 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199801800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | John Day Watershed Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199801800 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Shaun W. Robertson |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 480 Canyon City, OR 97820 |
| Phone / email | 5415754212 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Implement protection and restoration actions to improve water quality, water quantity, and fish habitat, and eliminate passage barriers for anadromous and resident fish. |
| Target species | Spring chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, pacific lamprey, redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and bull trout. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1995 | Completion of Phase I implementation activities |
| 1996 | Completion of Phase II implementation activities. |
| 1997 | Completion of Phase III implementation activities. |
| 1998 | Completion of Phase IV implementation activities. |
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 | All personnel costs are covered in other contracts. | $0 |
| Fringe | None | $0 |
| Supplies | $66,900 | |
| Operating | All operations and maintence is the responsibility of the landowner under signed agreements. | $0 |
| Capital | Capitial equipment would include items such as pumps, wheelines, handlines, etc. | $20,900 |
| NEPA | Planning and compliance is covered in other contracts. | $0 |
| Construction | All construction is implemented and administered by the GSWCD; 10% contingency. | $42,000 |
| Other | $30,000 | |
| Subcontractor | The GSWCD is the sole contractor. | $300,118 |
| $459,918 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $459,918 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $459,918 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | Equipment, equipment rental, supplies, subcontractor, and other | $459,918 | unknown |
| Local Agencies | Planning, design, compliance, review, and other cost-share | $74,000 | unknown |
| Landowners | Labor, equipment, operations, and maintenance | $41,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requires instream construction work to be completed between July 15 and August 15 or 31 for John Day streams, depending on location. Permitting and compliance can require 3-4 months for completion.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until specific engineering plans and monitoring efforts are presented. (low priority)Comments: This proposal provides abundant background information on John Day Watershed projects, but should include details about proposals for future work. The methods section is particularly abbreviated and expressed in general terms. Quantification of past benefits should be spelled out more fully.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Projects requiring BPA funds for operation and maintenance on private lands should be reviewed carefully. Preference should be given to new projects that demonstrate a commitment from private landowners to operate and maintain capital improvements. Each of six objectives is accompanied by a sub-set of objectives, but the intended methodology is described only briefly. The proposal includes a good description of relationships to other projects. The introduction and rationale are well written and comprehensive, but some quantification should be made for improvements in survival or environmental parameters as a result of altered water diversions or improved habitats. There is some redundancy of information in the presentation.
Collection of baseline data should be included as well as monitoring for trends in use by anadromous and resident fish in areas improved by this project. The claim is made that there will be extensive monitoring at each site, including fish species distribution, but more details should be provided on how this is to be accomplished. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.
The cost-sharing budget includes BPA grant monies, and may not be calculated correctly. Mortality of summer steelhead related to sport fishing is assumed to be negligible. The statement appears questionable. More data of past monitoring for temperature and flow should be provided to demonstrate biological and cost-effectiveness of these diversion and water use strategies. The proposal would benefit from expanded documentation to assure cost-effectiveness of each diversion project. Without explanation, the proposed budget is doubled from Fiscal 1999. Why?
Comment:
Comment:
ODFW has concerns with broad use of infiltration galleries. #5- Big cost share. In past c/s from locals and BOR, but not definitely arranged yet, but will likely occur. #6 Needs O & M, and commitments in place from landowners. #12-some risk of failure. Increase in cost reflects new habitat implementation opportunities. In order to meet other priorities in this region, funding has been reduced.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Well written proposal that demonstrates the benefit of working with others.
What is the disposition of the saved water? Will it be protected as an in-stream water right? What is the direct hydrologic benefit and what guarantee is there that the next junior water-right holder will not use the water? What is the in-stream benefit in dry years?
Proposal does not tie project activities to direct biological benefits.
Unclear what the SWCD budget actually purchases.
Proposal exceeds the page limit.
Comment:
Fund. The responses clearly and adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. Moreover, it was refreshing to read responses to the original ISRP review which were complete, detailed, and not defensive.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $477,966 | $477,966 | $477,966 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website