FY 2000 proposal 20131
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 20131 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20131 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 20131 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gary A. James |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, OR 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5412764109 / jaburke@ucinet.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Increase production of indigenous wild stocks of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead within the North Fork of the John Day River Subbasin. |
| Target species | The following anadromous species: indigenous wild spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead; resident fish (including bull trout) and wildlife will also benefit from habitat enhancements proposed under this project. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8402100 | John Day River Subbasin Fish Habitat Enhancement | Will complement project by integrating existing on-the-ground efforts into a comprehensive watershed management approach. Both projects will operate independently, but function as part of an interdependent program. |
| 9137 | John Day Watershed Restoration | Will complement project by integrating existing on-the-ground efforts into a comprehensive watershed management approach. Both projects will operate independently, but function as part of an interdependent program. |
| 9605300 | North Fork John Day River Dredge Tailings Restoration | Will complement project by integrating existing on-the-ground efforts into a comprehensive watershed management approach. Both projects will operate independently, but function as part of an interdependent program. |
| 8710001 | Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project | Will share personnel, vehicles and equipment. |
| 9604601 | Walla Walla Basin Habitat Enhancement | Will share personnel, vehicles and equipment. |
| 9608300 | Grande Ronde Basin Habitat Enhancement | Will share personnel, vehicles and equipment. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $47,500 | |
| Fringe | $13,300 | |
| Supplies | $55,000 | |
| Operating | Not Applicable - New Project Proposal. | $0 |
| Travel | $7,740 | |
| Indirect | $42,004 | |
| Subcontractor | Fence construction, noxious weed control, and tree planting | $40,000 |
| $205,544 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $205,544 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $205,544 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTUIR | Partial salary for Fisheries Program Manager, Project Leader, Habitat Technician, Office Manager and Secretary | $55,106 | unknown |
| BIA | Training and Per Diem | $600 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Possible constraints may include delays in securing conservation easements due to longer than anticipated negotiations with landowners.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until a monitoring plan for anadromous fish is presented.Comments: A well-written proposal, with excellent background and generous coordination with some BPA projects. The project should be coordinated with the North Fork Watershed Council. Monitoring plans are inadequate. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: It seems apparent that selected habitat enhancement projects would increase the potential for fish production, but one wonders if there would be greater benefit in the Middle Fork, South Fork or mainstem John Day River. An estimate of the extent of improvement expected from salmon and steelhead runs would be helpful. One stated objective is to obtain conservation easements with three or four landowners, yet there is little assurance they can be secured. The authors claim that high tensile fencing is very cost-effective relative to barbed wire, but offers no quantitative evidence. The proposal notes that "a one-per-reach" macro-invertebrate sample will be taken, but does not state how many in total. Will this sampling be adequate? The proposal would be improved with discussion of redd counts, larval, juvenile, and smolt salmonid counts as part of the assessment procedures. Similarly, it should include plans to estimate changes in stream morphology/hydrology.
Comment:
Comment:
Proposal is vague; implementation tasks not clearly defined #1- Coordinated with local ODFW . #2/3/7-WSAssess identified on p.1. Proposal filling a need that is not currently being met. #5 - 21% non-BPA. #6-Will need O&M to sustain improvements, but prTechnically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
How is this tied to the North Fork John Day Watershed Council?Proposed project would benefit from partnerships with NRCS/CREP.
Monitoring activities are poorly tied to objectives.
No specific habitat enhancement projects were identified, therefore it is unclear how the budget is related to the activities.
Comment:
Fund. The sponsor provided adequate responses to most of the specific ISRP comments, but the sponsor did not adequately address the ISRP recommendation: "Delay funding until a monitoring plan for anadromous fish is presented." The sponsor states that the project will coordinate with pertinent entities/projects to obtain assessment information regarding redd counts, larval, juvenile, and smolt salmonid counts. However, evidence of existence of these data is not provided, and they do not demonstrate how they will use this data to measure the success of their project. The ISRP strongly encourages coordination with Project #9801600 (Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook) for an expanded survey for chinook and #9703400 (Monitor Fine Sediments and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers) for long term monitoring of project results.Granted this is not a "research project", but monitoring for effectiveness of the project is a necessary component called for in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]