FY 1999 proposal 198400800

Additional documents

TitleType
198400800 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleNorth Fork John Day Habitat Improvement
Proposal ID198400800
OrganizationUSDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Sanchez
Mailing address2517 SW Hailey Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone / email5412783819 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / John Day
Short descriptionProject is critical to maintain effectiveness of investments that are effective in providing juvenile anadromous fish summer survival habitat and rearing habitat.
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
9303800 NFJD Area Riparian Fencing Received funds from this project

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 $6,600
Supplies $5,200
Operating $4,000
Indirect $2,500
Subcontractor n/a $11,700
$30,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$30,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$30,000
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: Noe Anticipated


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: Need to describe the existing resource condition and critical limiting factors, measurable objectives, strategic actions and expected results, and the monitoring methods for determining if the expected results are being achieved and the process for modifying the project based on the monitoring results.

Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.

In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).


Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The revisions do not significantly change the original proposal. The original proposal falls into unacceptable level because it lacks adequate description of the project activities and gives inadequate justification. However, the purposes appear worthwhile. The budget does not appear to provide enough money to maintain instream structures as described in the proposal. Are the instream structures designed to survive floods? Do they mimic nature?