FY 2000 proposal 199605300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199605300 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199605300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199605300 |
| Organization | USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (USFS/CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John Sanchez |
| Mailing address | Umatilla NF, 2517 S.W. Hailey Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5412783819 / jsanchez/r6pnw_umatilla@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Restore floodplain function to dredge minded reaches of the North Fork John Day River tributaries by rehabilitating areas with tailing piles that restrict river flow. |
| Target species | John Day River Spring Chinook, John Day River Summer Steelhead |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Pilot Project Completed, ½ mile restored |
| 1994 | Monitoring of Pilot Project |
| 1995 | 2 miles of restoration, NFJD River |
| 1996 | 3 miles of restoration, NFJD River |
| 1997 | 4 miles of restoration, NFJD River |
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 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 | $4,000 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Construction | $8,000 | |
| Travel | $1,000 | |
| Indirect | $9,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $63,000 | |
| $85,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $85,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $85,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS | NEPA & Consultation | $8,000 | unknown |
| USFS | Contract Support | $8,000 | unknown |
| USFS | Subcontractor Construction | $50,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Environmental Analysis and ESA Consultation
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until potential adverse side effects of fine sediments and contaminated sediments, details on monitoring for use by salmon and steelhead, and details on their engineering plan are provided. (low priority)Comments: This technically inadequate proposal acknowledges earlier restoration work (1993-1997), but does not establish evidence of improved water quality or fish production as a result of those efforts. Conflicting estimates of dredged sediment to be redistributed are cited (30,000 cu. yd. on Page 3, 170,000 cu. yd. on Page 5), some of it to be used to fill depressions in the stream channel, but the possible consequences of this action are given little acknowledgement. Are the tailings contaminated? Will fine sediments be flushed out, to impact fish and aquatic invertebrates in previously restored downstream areas? What percentage of the tailings may be deposited in the river, and what percentage will be deposited on the stream bank or hauled offsite?
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Among four objectives listed by the author(s), few details are offered to explain how restoration is to be conducted, for what specific purposes, and with what analysis. Further, there is inadequate presentation of the intended engineering and landscape design techniques to be employed. The project does not establish a relationship with other Bonneville activities. The proposal should be coordinated with Project No. 9703400. Monitoring plans for use by salmon and steelhead are inadequate. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.
Comment:
Comment:
#2/3/7-listed. #5-USFS contributing. #6 O&M not needed. #9-Example of restoring "normative" ecosystem. #12-No demonstration in proposal.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal should provide more detailed information including a clear link to the expected biological response (fish production).Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Comment:
Fund. The project has potential benefit to fish and wildlife but still lacks biological monitoring and evaluation or coordination with other projects to determine if the efforts are successful. The other concerns of the ISRP were adequately addressed by the sponsor. While a full-scale biological monitoring and evaluation program may not be necessary in addition to the physical monitoring, it is important to conduct biological monitoring such as an annual redd count of the entire project area. 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.The sponsor agreed that coordination with Project #9801600 (Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook) and #9703400 (Monitor Fine Sediments and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers) would be helpful and we strongly encourage them to pursue this coordination as well as to continue to monitor the physical floodplain recovery.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]