FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23064
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 |
|---|---|
| 23064 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Hood River-Punch Bowl Falls Fishway-Replacement of Access Stairway |
| Proposal ID | 23064 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Paul R. Johnson, Chief Engineer |
| Mailing address | ODFW, Fish Division, PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 |
| Phone / email | 5038725299 / Paul.R.Johnson@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Roy Elicker, Asst. Director of Fisheries |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Hood |
| Short description | Replace damaged access stairway to provide safe means of cleaning and maintaining fishway. This allows re-establishment and maintaining of fish runs upstream in the West Fork of Hood River. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook, Winter Steelhead, Summer Steelhead, plus Indigenous and Resident |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.6017 | -121.631 | Punchbowl Falls |
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $10,000 | |
| Fringe | $2,500 | |
| Supplies | $500 | |
| Travel | $500 | |
| Indirect | @ | $3,250 |
| Capital | $120,000 | |
| $136,750 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $136,750 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $136,750 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODFW/NMFS | O & M on yearly basis | $5,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
On second review, this proposal appears to fail the solicitation's critical criteria. If the proposed work is "High Priority", why wasn't this proposed during the recently completed Columbia River Gorge provincial review?Comment:
This proposal was not evaluated in the "Rolling Review" because it was not ready in time. Personnel have to wade across the creek at low flows to dig gravel out of the ladder. This presents a safety problem and delays necessary maintenance. Since the ladder cannot be accessed for maintenance there is potential for adult fish blockage, injury and mortality during high flow events.