FY 1999 proposal 9045

Additional documents

TitleType
9045 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams on Lower North Fork John Day
Proposal ID9045
OrganizationNorth Fork John Day Watershed Council (NFJDWC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRobert Stubblefield
Mailing addressP.O. Box 95 Monument, OR 97864
Phone / email5419342141 / waterguy@transport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / John Day
Short descriptionModify 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 speciesSpring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Resident Redband Trout.
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

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 $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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.

Recommendation:
Pass (Fundable)
Date:
May 13, 1998

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

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.