FY 1999 proposal 9045
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 |
|---|---|
| 9045 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams on Lower North Fork John Day |
| Proposal ID | 9045 |
| Organization | North Fork John Day Watershed Council (NFJDWC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Robert Stubblefield |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 95 Monument, OR 97864 |
| Phone / email | 5419342141 / waterguy@transport.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / John Day |
| Short description | Modify irrigation pumping stations by replacing above-ground suction screens with sub-surface collectors. Eliminate flow modification, migration impediments, and vegetation disruption and destruction inflicted during construction of gravel push-up dams. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Resident Redband 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 |
|---|
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 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 | $6,000 | |
| Supplies | $30,000 | |
| Operating | Primarily monitoring | $1,500 |
| Travel | $500 | |
| Indirect | $1,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Monument Soil and Water Conservation District; Columbia Power Co-op; The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Monument High School | $25,000 |
| Other | $2,500 | |
| Other | $2,500 | |
| Other | $2,500 | |
| Other | $2,500 | |
| $74,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $74,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $74,000 |
| 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: Construction and installation pumping stations can most easily and effectively be accomplished during periods of low flows (normally beginning mid-July on the lower North Fork). May have to acquire brief extension on permits for instream work.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Technical Issue: Concerned that the only M&E is water temperatures behind the push-up dams. Need to provide more detail on the monitoring and evaluation plans.Management Issue: Include an analysis of alternatives including transferring the water to an instream right.
Comment:
Comment:
This proposal would eliminate adult and juvenile fish passage problems. The goals are reasonable. The objectives, tasks, and subtasks are not clearly defined. The objective is to improve water quality, but there are no measurable end points. It lacks a fisheries context. It is not clear how this proposal relates to the Fish and Wildlife Program.