FY 1999 proposal 9058

Additional documents

TitleType
9058 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore Chinook Passage into Woodard Creek & Enhance Habitat
Proposal ID9058
OrganizationColumbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, U.S.D.A., U.S. Forest Service (CRGNSA)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDerrick B. Bawdon
Mailing address902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200 Hood River, OR 97031
Phone / email5413862333 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Lower Columbia Mainstem
Short descriptionRestore passage for chinook salmon to Woodard Creek and enhance pool habitat and restore spawning ground for salmonids.
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

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

(working on it)

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.