FY 2000 proposal 199801800

Additional documents

TitleType
199801800 Narrative Narrative
199801800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleJohn Day Watershed Restoration
Proposal ID199801800
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameShaun W. Robertson
Mailing addressP.O. Box 480 Canyon City, OR 97820
Phone / email5415754212 / ctwsjdbo@eoni.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionImplement protection and restoration actions to improve water quality, water quantity, and fish habitat, and eliminate passage barriers for anadromous and resident fish.
Target speciesSpring chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, pacific lamprey, redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and bull trout.
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
1995 Completion of Phase I implementation activities
1996 Completion of Phase II implementation activities.
1997 Completion of Phase III implementation activities.
1998 Completion of Phase IV implementation activities.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel All personnel costs are covered in other contracts. $0
Fringe None $0
Supplies $66,900
Operating All operations and maintence is the responsibility of the landowner under signed agreements. $0
Capital Capitial equipment would include items such as pumps, wheelines, handlines, etc. $20,900
NEPA Planning and compliance is covered in other contracts. $0
Construction All construction is implemented and administered by the GSWCD; 10% contingency. $42,000
Other $30,000
Subcontractor The GSWCD is the sole contractor. $300,118
$459,918
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$459,918
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$459,918
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
BPA Equipment, equipment rental, supplies, subcontractor, and other $459,918 unknown
Local Agencies Planning, design, compliance, review, and other cost-share $74,000 unknown
Landowners Labor, equipment, operations, and maintenance $41,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requires instream construction work to be completed between July 15 and August 15 or 31 for John Day streams, depending on location. Permitting and compliance can require 3-4 months for completion.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until specific engineering plans and monitoring efforts are presented. (low priority)

Comments: This proposal provides abundant background information on John Day Watershed projects, but should include details about proposals for future work. The methods section is particularly abbreviated and expressed in general terms. Quantification of past benefits should be spelled out more fully.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Projects requiring BPA funds for operation and maintenance on private lands should be reviewed carefully. Preference should be given to new projects that demonstrate a commitment from private landowners to operate and maintain capital improvements. Each of six objectives is accompanied by a sub-set of objectives, but the intended methodology is described only briefly. The proposal includes a good description of relationships to other projects. The introduction and rationale are well written and comprehensive, but some quantification should be made for improvements in survival or environmental parameters as a result of altered water diversions or improved habitats. There is some redundancy of information in the presentation.

Collection of baseline data should be included as well as monitoring for trends in use by anadromous and resident fish in areas improved by this project. The claim is made that there will be extensive monitoring at each site, including fish species distribution, but more details should be provided on how this is to be accomplished. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.

The cost-sharing budget includes BPA grant monies, and may not be calculated correctly. Mortality of summer steelhead related to sport fishing is assumed to be negligible. The statement appears questionable. More data of past monitoring for temperature and flow should be provided to demonstrate biological and cost-effectiveness of these diversion and water use strategies. The proposal would benefit from expanded documentation to assure cost-effectiveness of each diversion project. Without explanation, the proposed budget is doubled from Fiscal 1999. Why?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

ODFW has concerns with broad use of infiltration galleries. #5- Big cost share. In past c/s from locals and BOR, but not definitely arranged yet, but will likely occur. #6 Needs O & M, and commitments in place from landowners. #12-some risk of failure. Increase in cost reflects new habitat implementation opportunities. In order to meet other priorities in this region, funding has been reduced.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Well written proposal that demonstrates the benefit of working with others.

What is the disposition of the saved water? Will it be protected as an in-stream water right? What is the direct hydrologic benefit and what guarantee is there that the next junior water-right holder will not use the water? What is the in-stream benefit in dry years?

Proposal does not tie project activities to direct biological benefits.

Unclear what the SWCD budget actually purchases.

Proposal exceeds the page limit.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The responses clearly and adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. Moreover, it was refreshing to read responses to the original ISRP review which were complete, detailed, and not defensive.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
capital
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$477,966 $477,966 $477,966

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website