Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Chinook Passage into Woodard Creek & Enhance Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 9058 |
| Organization | Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, U.S.D.A., U.S. Forest Service (CRGNSA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Derrick B. Bawdon |
| Mailing address | 902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200 Hood River, OR 97031 |
| Phone / email | 5413862333 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Lower Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Restore passage for chinook salmon to Woodard Creek and enhance pool habitat and restore spawning ground for salmonids. |
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
|
$19,550 |
| Supplies |
|
$17,000 |
| Travel |
|
$1,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$7,890 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$30,000 |
| Other |
|
$11,684 |
| $87,624 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $87,624 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $87,624 |
| 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: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process should be completed by 06/1999 and the Decision Notice signed by 07/1999 for the channel and riparian restoration work to begin on schedule. Proper permits must be received from the State of Washington and the Corp of Engineers by 07/1999 for work to begin on schedule.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Explain how these objectives relate to the entire watershed and address the stability of the upland conditions – what are the upland activities, other than the burn (~1930) that are causing problems and are being addressed. What are the activities in the uplands that are consistent with this work that will provide stable viable fish populations?Technical Issue: Need to provide the specific watershed context of this proposal – the referenced watershed assessments are too broad and general.
Technical Issue: The measurable expected results need more clearly described.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Although the revised proposal includes good monitoring provisions, the original and the revised proposals give virtually no linkages to the Fish and Wildlife Program, except to note the goal to increase the Woodard Creek pool per mile ratio from 6 upward toward the "CBFWA FWP" recommended ratio of 56. However, no specific pool per mile ratio was noted as an objective. There may be strong reasons to do this work in this location, however the proposals fail to make that case. Also, the proposals lack detail to ensure a high probability of project success. There was no mention of a watershed analysis to prioritize restoration activities. This looks like a technical approach to watershed restoration, yet this may be a good site for passive restoration. The objectives listed in different parts of the proposal do not match. The ISRP asks why is this project appropriate for BPA funding and what contribution will cooperators provide.