FY 1999 proposal 9016

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleResearch/Evaluate Restoration of NE Ore Streams and Develop Mgmt Guidelines
Proposal ID9016
OrganizationOregon State University and the University of Oregon (OSU / U of O )
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJ. Boone Kauffman
Mailing addressDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone / email5417371625 / boone.kauffman@orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Grande Ronde, John Day, Umatilla
Short descriptionResearch and evaluate the hydrogeomorphic and ecological responses/processes of riparian/aquatic restoration and fish habitat enhancement projects in NE Oregon and develop sound habitat management guidelines and approaches based on scientific research.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
5519100 Evaluate Meadow Creek Instream Structure and Riparian Restoration This project represents a continuation of the research progress gained in this study towards our understanding of appropriate restoration approaches

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel Includes principle investigators, research assistant, 5 grad students/yr, summer field crews $125,720
Fringe varies depending upon posisition $23,304
Supplies field equipment, office supplies, phone charges, lab costs, etc., $11,850
Capital Total station surveying instrument and accessories $10,000
Travel field work, per diem and travel to professional meetings $16,490
Indirect 43% of the above costs $72,823
Subcontractor Department of Forest Enginering, OSU; Department of Geography, U Of O; Cooperative Fisheries Unit- Biological Resources Division, USGS $0
Other $27,387
Other $27,387
Other $27,387
$342,348
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$342,348
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$342,348
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: There are no foreseeable constraints


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This project is inappropriately designated as a Flow/survival project type. It is primarily a watershed project and should so indicate. Difficult to evaluate because criteria are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed projects.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.

Duplicates ongoing work. Some or all of proposed activities are similar or identical to work already funded. Better knowledge or coordination of past or ongoing projects would have reduced or eliminated project need.

Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This was one of the best proposals reviewed and includes an excellent conceptual foundation. The graph on page 7 was very helpful. The focus on passive restoration was viewed favorably by the ISRP. The proposal includes a good experimental approach with hypotheses and control sites, consideration of plant, animal, and environmental variables, and data for normative conditions. The ISRP was pleased that they propose to study non-game fishes. The ISRP strongly recommends this project for funding.