FY 1999 proposal 198400800
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | North Fork John Day Habitat Improvement |
Proposal ID | 198400800 |
Organization | USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest (USFS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | John Sanchez |
Mailing address | 2517 SW Hailey Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 |
Phone / email | 5412783819 / |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / John Day |
Short description | Project 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
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 |
9303800 |
NFJD Area Riparian Fencing |
Received funds from this project |
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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
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?