Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Research/Evaluate Restoration of NE Ore Streams and Develop Mgmt Guidelines |
| Proposal ID | 9016 |
| Organization | Oregon State University and the University of Oregon (OSU / U of O ) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | J. Boone Kauffman |
| Mailing address | Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 |
| Phone / email | 5417371625 / boone.kauffman@orst.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Grande Ronde, John Day, Umatilla |
| Short description | Research 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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:
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.
