FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199801700

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
199801700 Narrative	Narrative
199801700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams in Lower North Fork John Day
Proposal ID	199801700
Organization	North Fork John Day Watershed Council (NFJDWC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Alex Conley
Mailing address	P.O. Box 95 Monument, OR 97864
Phone / email	5419342141 / nfjdwc@oregontrail.net
Manager authorizing this project	Jack Cavender, Chairman, Monument SWCD
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Eliminate gravel push-up dams in the lower North Fork John Day River. Replace with permanent pumping stations resulting in removal of passage impediments and elimination of annual instream modification.
Target species	Summer Steelhead, Chinook Salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.82	-119.42	Lower North Fork John Day. Monument-Kimberly reach.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 149	NMFS	BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1998	Replaced gravel push-up dams at River Meadows Ranch and Schultz Ranches with permanent pumping stations
1998	Monitored water temperatures and overall water quality throughout irrigation season.
1998	Initiated and proposed projects to replace five additional push-up dams.
1999	Completed design for installations to replace three push-up dams with permanent pumping stations.
2000	Replaced gravel push-up dams at Smith Ranch and Antler Ranch with permanent pumping stations.
2000	Monitored water temperatures and overall water quality throughout irrigation season.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
980160	John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon Escapement & Productivity Monitoring Research Project.	Coordinator participates in spawning surveys and collected data is shared.
9306600	Northeast Oregon Screening & Passage Screen Shop	ODFW fabricates screening devices and provides technical assistance with design, installation, and consultation.
8402100	Protect & Enhance John Day River Fish Habitat	Improved passage and water quality in lower North Fork John Day is directly beneficial to Middle Fork John Day fishery.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. NEPA Review	a. Complete NEPA checklist.	1	$1,500
2. NMFS Consultation	b. Complete Section 7 consulatation.	1	$1,500
3. Design Projects	c. Engineer and design installations, pumping systems, and pipelines.	1	$5,000	Yes
4. Provide watershed council support.	a. Maintain office and computer/internet services and supplies.	1	$10,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. NEPA Review	2003	2005	$4,500
2. NMFS Consultation	2003	2005	$4,500
3. Design Projects	2003	2005	$24,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$11,000	$11,000	$11,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Power Installation	a. Relocate powerlines to location of permanent pumping installations.	1	$20,000	Yes
2. Install permanent pumping stations	a. Purchase materials for installations.	1	$50,000
	b. Install materials	1	$36,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Power Installation	2003	2005	$45,000
2. Install permanent pumping stations.	2003	2005	$270,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$105,000	$105,000	$105,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Clean and maintain pumping stations.	a. Annually pump accumulated silt from systems. Perform routine maintenance	1	$2,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Clean and maintain pumping stations.	2001	2010	$20,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Monitor water quality at project sites.	a. Install temperature loggers and perform water quality tests.	1	$500
	b. Compute and store data/	1	$1,000
2. Monitor riparian condition and bank stability at project sites.	a. Establish permanent photo points at each project site.	1	$500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor water quality at project sites.	2002	2010	$13,500
2. Monitor riparian condition and bank stability at project sites.	2002	2010	$4,500

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: .1	$5,000
Supplies		$50,000
Indirect	Council support	$10,000
Subcontractor		$63,000
		$128,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$128,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$128,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$104,500
% change from forecast	22.5%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Cost of installation materials (PVC pipe) have risen dramatically due to continued high oil prices. Subcontractor costs have also risen.

Reason for change in scope

Project scope has expanded.. Out years have been extended because of increased landowner participation due to success of previous installations. Multi-agency support has enabled North Fork John Day Watershed Council to undertake more complex push-up dam elimination projects. Designs and installations continue to improve year-to-year.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
North Fork John Day Watershed Council	Project design and permitting assistance	$2,500	in-kind
Monument SWCD	Accounting and clerical support. Office space and motor vehicles.	$5,000	cash
Private Landowners.	Installation support and maintenance	$9,000	in-kind
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife	Technical assistance.	$1,000	in-kind
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs John Day Basin Office	Technical assistance.	$1,000	in-kind
Oregon Water Resources Department	Technical assistance	$2,500	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The project proposes to eliminate three gravel push-up dams and replace them with infiltration gallery pump stations to improve water quality and fish passage. Previous efforts have replaced four gravel dams with infiltration systems. The project and presentation demonstrated substantial local support for the program. The proposal made good links to the subbasin summary and to the FWP.

Missing from the proposal were any maps, descriptions of the three sites proposed for this funding year, and any indication of planned work over the following two years. Funding at the provincial review scale is for three years, so it is imperative that the proposal describes work for the current funding year, as well as the two outyears. Adequate justification for these activities and links to other projects are provided, however specific locations of projects are not included. More detail on methods should be provided. Finally, missing from the proposal is a larger picture of the overall magnitude and distribution of gravel push-up dams, and the progress this program is making in dealing with it. This could easily be addressed using a small series of maps showing the location of gravel push-up dams historically, present, and some desired future date (or state).

The proposal demonstrates a good cooperative approach to monitoring, but the response should describe the project's selection of monitoring approach (tier) for establishing the project's biologically measurable results and the justification of this selection (see ISRP's general comments on monitoring).

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The project proposes to eliminate three gravel push-up dams and replace them with infiltration gallery pump stations to improve water quality and fish passage. Previous efforts have replaced four gravel dams with infiltration systems. The project and presentation demonstrated substantial local support for the program. The proposal made good links to the subbasin summary and to the FWP. The response adequately addressed ISRP comments about the location and position of push up dams to be removed, as well as questions about monitoring methods.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project proposes to eliminate 3 gravel push-up dams in the lower North Fork John Day River & replace them with infiltration gallery pump stations to improve water quality and migratory passage.

Comments
Previous efforts have replaced 4 gravel dams with infiltration systems.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This project eliminates gravel push-up dams in the lower North Fork John Day River and replaces them with permanent pumping stations. This results in removal of passage impediments and elimination of annual in-stream modifications.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Expect accruals of 20-30K this year. Could possibly do up to 200K in 04. Increased permit burden delayed one year and delays from FTE issues. Watershed Council now staffed up for this year. Can possibly reschedule tasks from 03 to 04. Check for SCOPE CHANGE

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:
$105,134	$105,134	$105,134

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website