Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Hood River Fish Habitat Project |
| Proposal ID | 9126 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Michael Lambert |
| Mailing address | 3430 W 10th St. The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412966866 / hoodriverproject@netcnct.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Hood |
| Short description | Implement 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 species | winter steelhead, spring chinook and coho salmon, and resident trout |
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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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?