FY 1999 proposal 9126

Additional documents

TitleType
9126 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHood River Fish Habitat Project
Proposal ID9126
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMichael Lambert
Mailing address3430 W 10th St. The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone / email5412966866 / hoodriverproject@netcnct.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Hood
Short descriptionImplement habitat improvement actions that will support supplementation efforts within the Hood River subbasin as approved by the NPPC and supported by the BPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hood River Production Program (HRPP).
Target specieswinter steelhead, spring chinook and coho salmon, and resident 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 $3,600
Fringe $828
Supplies $2,000
Indirect $2,660
Subcontractor $108,000
$117,088
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$117,088
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$117,088
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: Objectives 1, 2, and 3 will be completed in FY 99 as projected if FY 98 funding was approved for the Hood River Habitat Project. Tasks for objectives 1, 2, and 3 and additional objectives will need added to this proposal if FY 98 funding was not approved.


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:

Management Issue: Describe other alternatives that may have been considered for the fish ladder (e.g., infiltration pumps or removal of the diversion dam).
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
HRPP Adequate as a set
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

ISRP reviewers praise this proposal as extremely well written and persuasive, exemplary in demonstrating (in Sections 2 and 8 of the proposal) the contributions of a single element to a much broader, multi-project program. Elsewhere, however, reviewers comment that the proposal might better describe the goal of this proposal and critically analyze the intended actions. They suggest a lack of fine detail on monitoring and evaluating in the proposal, even though those actions are identified in a separate proposal and results are to be expressed in an annual report. It is unclear if a watershed analysis was prepared, and what prescriptions arise for that analysis. Finally, the reviewers state that the proposal is in need of "reference points" that address such questions as: How much is enough? Who should pay -- irrigation district or BPA? And how is it intended that landowners be motivated to improve fish habitat?