FY 2000 proposal 199901000
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 |
|---|---|
| 199901000 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mitigate Effects of Runoff & Erosion on Salmonid Habitat in Pine Hollow |
| Proposal ID | 199901000 |
| Organization | Pine Hollow Watershed Council, c/o Sherman Soil and Water Conservation District (Sherman SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jeff Clark |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 405 Moro, OR 97039 |
| Phone / email | 5415653216 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Will implement practices to reduce erosion and flooding, allowing natural recovery of riparian vegetation and channel type. Phase 2 will focus on replanting or protecting critical areas within the stream corridor. |
| Target species | Steelhead, Redband trout, Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Demonstration Phase implementation |
| 1998 | Begin upland practices |
| 1998 | Assess stream condition |
| 1999 | Continue installation of upland practices |
| 1995 | Begin temperature monitoring |
| 1996 | Begin steelhead spawning surveys |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 20522 | Multi-Year John Day Anadromous Fish Plan |
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 | 3 people, ~3/4 FTE, total value ~$18,900. BPA share: 50%, Other Sources: GWEB, ODA, Counties, | $9,450 |
| Fringe | Total value, $3,150, Other info as above | $2,362 |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Operating | 100% provided by landowners | $0 |
| Capital | Photocopy machine, 15% local match | $3,000 |
| Subcontractor | Total value: $47,100. BPA: 40%, landowners : 10%, other sources: 50% | $19,125 |
| $33,937 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $33,937 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $33,937 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| GWEB | $68,000 over two years (2000-2001) | $34,000 | unknown |
| PG&E Gas Transmission NW | $8,000 over five years (1996-2001) | $1,600 | unknown |
| Wasco SWCD | ATV, 24 hours per year @ $20/hour | $480 | unknown |
| US Fish & Wildlife | $15,000 over five years (1997-2002) | $3,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Engineering assistance from NRCS is limited. Riparian work will not be started until upland work is completed. The main constraint to riparian recovery is excessive peak flows. Completion of upland runoff control work may be considered a milestone.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle with high priority. The project should be reviewed in 3 years for reporting of results.Comments: The involvement of watershed-related groups is a notable strength of this proposal, which has the potential to yield measurable results at modest cost. It also has the potential to integrate readily with other studies to measure sediments, smolts and juvenile fish in the John Day Basin.
While the proposal is well written, it could benefit from additional detail and explanation. Reviewers note that much of it is expressed in very general and qualitative terms that make the proposal somewhat difficult to evaluate. Success in this enterprise hinges in large part on the voluntary compliance of landowners, and it will be difficult to evaluate when and at what rate objectives can be achieved. Objectives are not well quantified and are very long-term in nature. It is unclear what incentive(s) may be necessary or appropriate for landowners to maintain their efforts for an extended period, and some evaluation will of course be required of their management practices. It is likewise unclear if the proposal includes built-in enforcement and monitoring costs.
Methodology is very qualitative, lacks adequate timelines and is not explicitly bound to objectives. The size and extent of fencing, range management and other elements are inadequately defined, and it is unclear how much of the watershed will be affected by the improvements. It is unclear how Phase 1 activities (cropland conservation measures and range management plans) are to be implemented over a sufficient time to demonstrate expected benefits, and what inducement(s), if any, will be provided to landowners to maintain their efforts on a prolonged basis. The authors do not indicate to what degree rearing and spawning habitat are limited compared with "historical" levels. Contemporary extremes in flow variability are not quantified relative to some target of an ideal level.
There is little evidence to support the claim that this comprehensive approach is the most cost effective. Further, cost effectiveness normally includes a time element to demonstrate benefits (improvements) on a temporal scale. The proposal offers inadequate plans to survey juvenile steelhead and salmon or to cooperate with other projects for monitoring of results. Redd counts may be deficient because they are too few, and adult populations are impacted by conditions beyond the watershed (fishing mortality, ocean conditions, etc.). Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600. Because the goals are very broad and long-term, reviewers caution that this project may, and possibly will, exceed the term of planned BPA funding.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Good use of CREP/ BPA cost-share.Improves upland areas first.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $23,500 | $23,500 | $23,500 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website